Isn't this where Mojo is going?

Speaking of, where is Mojo?

Sorry, this is fiction about real-life scientists being driven mad, when in fact the real-life scientists in question were not driven mad?

I dunno, it's kind of fun to watch people faceplanting as they try to ride their mind-bicycles.

I really like having ~8-12 active Ghostty windows tiled so I can keep an eye on everyone's progress, and then I'll expand one or two for deeper work. Would love to see some sort of auto-expand/contract so I can keep an eye on everything but then when I foreground a pane it grows, or something like that.

Ah, like a way to maximize the current pane you're focused on?

Yep! Also a simple text editor pane would be sweet too.

Haha, it's like we're moving towards an IDE but starting from the opposite direction.

My two cents - don’t do it. There’s plenty of terminal editors (and personal opinions about them) to chose from. You will end up reinventing an IDE.

>So even when it compiles, you’ve got the burden of verifying everything is above board which is a pretty huge task.

Is this true?

e.g. the Riemann hypothesis is in mathlib:

  def RiemannHypothesis : Prop :=
    ∀ (s : ℂ) (_ : riemannZeta s = 0) (_ : ¬∃ n : ℕ, s = -2 * (n + 1)) (_ : s ≠ 1), s.re = 1 / 2

If I construct a term of this type without going via one of the (fairly obvious) soundness holes or a compiler bug, it's very likely proved, no? No matter how inscrutable the proof is from a mathematical perspective. (Translating it into something mathematicians understand is a separate question, but that's not really what I'm asking.)

Sorry, I mean verify the semantics of what the LLM has generated is exactly what you were asking for.

I don't understand that. If it has a correct statement of the theorem and no `believe-me`s or whatever, it should be correct.

Yep, same here, with those exact prefixes...

Non-async functions are absolutely blocking. The question is if they’re expected to block for a meaningful amount of time, which is generally suggested by your async runtime.

It’s really not that bad, you might just need a better mental model of what’s actually happening.

Depends, on Linux you can call set_nonblocking on a TcpListener and get a WouldBlock error whenever a read would block. That's called non-blocking.

Doesn't this miss the forest for the trees? The entire point is to drive with epoll.

Well, yes. But it means you can do sync non-blocking IO by hand.

You can absolutely do global knowledge in proc macros via the filesystem and commit their output to version control: https://github.com/trevyn/turbosql

You can introduce side effects to a proc macro (but please avoid if at all possible), but you cannot control the order in which proc macros are run. If you need to reason about the global schema while generating code, that won’t work.

Lol, you haven’t learned your lesson with Vercel yet?

“The flawless binary is free to use, but only distributed as a closed source binary.”

Insta-pass.