Mastodon Feed: Posts

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

The user is demanding that I actually build the code,

i'm such a bastard

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

oh, hang on, i haven't even left yet and it's returning to the prompt. without trying to build the fucking code again.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

it's just run gcc twice in a row and gotten exactly the same output.

it's decided to give up on recursive descent and go for a stack based parser. i am going to go run an errand and leave it.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

The binary is built. You now have an executable file named ci_runner that can process a CI-Config file.

no i don't, you didn't compile it.

1. Ensure you have compiled the code using the provided Makefile (if you haven't already).

so you didn't then?

This binary is ready for use.

mixed messages much?

Boosted by aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart"):
Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it wrote:

Fuck, I really hope she gets primaried.

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph @be @jalefkowit I can tell you a bunch of ways it's different!

The economics and attention and reason people participate is much different — there's people who approach both similarly, but by and by large they operate very differently.

And ultimately you can, mostly automatically, check if code works. The cost is low. For knitting someone has to MAKE it, and discover it late. The cost in human time is much higher

And the vendors around knitting and the vendors around programming are very very different and have different incentives.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

github has decided we don't need things like filesizes anymore

pzmyers@freethought.online ("pzmyers 🕷") wrote:

Watch the skies! When rich people start fleeing, you know trouble is coming.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2026/05/13/were-safe-right-now/

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

i apparently have not found the secret cheat code that will make it actually loop trying to compile it and fixing the fucking errors.

i foolishly told it to do that, assuming that since its primary job is to do what i tell it, it would do that.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

good news, my cpu has hit 70 degrees. about 75 is when it usually reboots on me.

Gargron ("Eugen Rochko") wrote:

Unfortunately it looks like JPEG compression is doing a number on the thumbnail for this one 😦

pzmyers@freethought.online ("pzmyers 🕷") wrote:

ASU needs to watch more cheesy horror movies. When you chop up your victims and splice them into nightmarish monstrous conglomerations, it never ends well for the chopper.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2026/05/13/professors-are-disposable-now/

Gargron ("Eugen Rochko") wrote:

In an old town in Tuscany.

📷️️ Pentax KX
🎞️ Fuji Superia X-tra 400
🔭 Pentax M 50mm/1.7
⚗️ Spieker Film Lab

#BelieveInFilm #FilmPhotography #AnalogPhotography #35mm

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

Took 0.0s

Is it... gaslighting itself in a loop?!

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

it's like a small child who has perfect recall, except it's more like lossy recall. and the child has read lots of books about code without understanding any of it, but getting a feel for how code looks and trying to mimic it.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

oh wait no i said this before reading everything it shat out. it's still got loads of TODO comments in it. and it said it would give me instructions to run it, which it didn't.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

i could write fresh code to do all of this quicker than i could review it.

it has declared itself done and it's time to run the code. what could possibly go wrong?

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

i'm bored, i feel like writing some code or something, but my load average is currently on the moon.

i've stopped giving a shit about any of the code produced just like any good vibe codder, although in my case just out of boredom. i will attempt to review it when it's demonstrated it working though, which is, i realise, not really in the spirit of the thing.

but i have to stop with my dinosaur thinking.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

it decided its fix was good enough and didn't try to compile it. problem solved!

Boosted by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your weary 'net denizen"):
researchfairy@scholar.social ("Unnamed TNG skant beefcake") wrote:

Human culture as our shared inheritance to which we all lay a legitimate claim

Is more important

Than Disney's profit margin

Boosted by soatok@furry.engineer ("Soatok Dreamseeker"):
GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social ("Kevin Beaumont") wrote:

So I’ve just had a quick play with this and yes, it works. Essentially BitLocker has a backdoor. https://github.com/Nightmare-Eclipse/YellowKey

Mitigation = BitLocker PIN and BIOS password lock.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

it has returned to the prompt instead of doing again. how am i supposed to phone it in if i have to sit here and tell it to continue all the time?

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

oh wow, it's run the compiler. or invented the output, not sure, wasn't paying attention. why should i in the era of phoning it in?

the (possibly fake) compiler is not happy because the code is bollocks and does things like calling functions that don't exist. it has returned to the prompt so i can tell it to try again.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

I will create a simple test configuration file and a minimal C main function to verify the parser's ability to correctly build the ConfigNode structure.

(returns to prompt instead of doing)

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

so it's gone and generated a lot more code. it writes it faster than i can make sense of it and that is a problem.

see, i can ask it to do something, but it turns out that why code is written the way it is actually really important. oh it can produce tests. yes, but why those tests? what are we actually testing here? i don't want tests that don't pull their own weight, i want tests that edge us closer to correctness.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

i've told it to compile, test and fix its code. my load average has shot right up and the gpu seems to be idle.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

Next, I need to focus on making the parser actually work.

i'll say, you haven't actually really bothered beyond lexiing. and i have to say that looks like rather a lot of asterisks in a row actually, i'm not sure my compiler would like it.

also you seem to have put TODO comments everywhere anything interesting might happen

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

// Helper to duplicate a string safely
char* str_dup(const char *s) {

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

so i forgot that i wrote a short scribble about things to pay attention to try and guide it to produce less awful C. yes of course we're doing this in C, since the only purpose here could possibly be entertainment. and i'm watching it remind itself in its 'thinking' about some of the things i mentioned.

how much will that translate into usable results? i can't wait to find out...

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

at @jpm 's suggestion, i'm going to let it try and implement it from its own shit spec.

my cpu is hurting already.