Dolt has been around for 7 years[0]. Doltlite, like most software nowadays, has been touched by LLMs, but dismissing this project as "vibe coded" seems harsh
> Gas Town is for “write-only code”, … If you adopt Gas Town, you will lose the speed benefit of multiple agents if you read the code it produces. The first time you stare at an 8,500 line Git diff and try and parse what happened, you’ve lost. Go back to a single Claude Code session. Gas Town isn’t for you.
So none of the code has even been read by the author, it’s purposely overly verbose. “Touched by LLMs” seems to downplay just how vibe coded this is. I won’t use this database for anything.
If going through a strongly designed process with quality gates is vibe coding, I guess so. I thought the term was reserved fir “claude, make this happen” style development and the term for the more professional approach was “agentic development”, though this seems to be another layer higher.
Grouping it all under “vibe coded” loses precision. Sure, it uses AI, but differently from other projects and with different implications.
You can call it what you want I guess, but "vibe coded" around these parts is a simple pejorative, it means the authors don't know what the code does and the product is poor quality.
Most successful agent-coded projects have a few essential features that it's worth calling out: 1) The human driving it has real domain expertise; 2) There's an oracle for correctness; 3) The agent has a real-world example to copy, adapt, or translate.
This project had all these elements. The human driving the agent understood the technical and product decisions that make a version-controlled database work, because he's been doing that for 8 years. The project uses the existing 5.7M query test suite for SQLite3 as its oracle, as well as adapted versions of Dolt's extensive test suite to verify the version-control features that SQLite has no tests for. And the agent had a human-written implementation of the core product (Dolt) to crib from.
All of this is to say: yes, agents wrote this code, but if you or another randomly chosen software engineer sat down and tried to duplicate this result you wouldn't succeed. You wouldn't know what the agent had gotten wrong at every step of development, or even what questions to ask to find out where the errors might be. Despite the existence of a correctness oracle, the agent on its own cannot iterate to 100% correctness without a domain expert steering it. And that expert also has to have an extensive understanding of the existing code base that's being copied. You can't just say "Claude, implement version control in SQLite3, make no mistakes", it's not going to work.
"going beta" is a human decision. It proves nothing. All it proves is that at some point someone looked at it and said "good enough, ship it". It says nothing about the quality of the unreviewed code.
Any decent JIT compiler (and HotSpot's is world class) will optimize this out. Likely this was done very early on in development, or was just to reduce bytecode size to promote inlining heuristics that use it
String is also a pretty damn fundamental object, and I'm sure trim() calls are extremely common too. I wouldn't be surprised if making sure that seemingly small optimizations like this are applied in the interpreter before the JIT kicks are not premature optimizations in that context.
There might be common scenarios where this had a real, significant performance impacts, E.G. use-cases where it's such a bottle-neck in the interpreter that it measurably affects warm-up time. Also, string manipulation seems like the kind of thing you see in small scripts that end before a JIT even kicks in but that are also called very often (although I don't know how many people would reach for Java in that case.
EDIT: also, if you're a commercial entity trying to get people to use your programming language, it's probably a good idea to make the language perform less bad with the most common terrible code. And accidentally quadratic or worse string manipulation involving excessive calls to trim() seems like a very likely scenario in that context.
If what you call gets inlined, then the compiler can see that it either does or doesn't modify the attribute and optimize it accordingly. Even virtual calls can often be inlined via, e.g., class hierarchy analysis and inline caches.
If these analyses don't apply and the callee could do anything, then of course the compiler can't keep the value hoisted. But a function call has to occur anyway, so the hoisted value will be pushed/popped from the stack and you might as well reload it from the object's field anyway, rather than waste a stack slot.
There are documented ways to ensure that changes are visible across threads (e.g. locks). If these are not used, the compiler is within its rights to not go out of its way to pull changes from another thread.
It is true! If you explicitly synchronize between threads, sure, you can't optimize it in general, but if not, the compiler is well within its rights to cache the access.
That was a niche optimization primarily targeting code at intepretor. Even the most basic optimizing compiler in HotSpot tiered compilation chain at that time (the client compiler or C1) would be able to optimize that into the register. Since String is such an important class, even small stuffs like this is done.
This was Israel's thinking with Hamas - they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge and they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that, etc. Israel's thinking was wrong, and they've learned to believe their enemies when they say they want to destroy Israel. There isn't a country in the world that would allow their enemies, who have repeatedly stated that said country's demise is a key goal of theirs, to develop nukes if they have with the capability to stop it.
I don't doubt he said it, because I think it's pretty plain to see it's a correct analysis - antisemitism is rife with the new generation to a degree that, to me at least, is quite scary. I just think it's quite instructive that a hostile state is trying to use this to sow discord.
Is there an example one could provide of this which shows members of the new generation criticizing Jewish people for being Jewish? Surely it wouldn’t be examples of people voicing criticism of the actions of people who happen to be Jewish.
Yeah but what was the prevalence of anti-Israeli sentiment prior to the 40k civilian massacre?
I wasn’t even paying attention to the news one day and CNN was casually interviewing a Palestinian father holding a dead baby corpse in his hands, with the head covered in a blood soaked bag. On CNN, at 10am.
You don’t have to be particularly impressionable to be affected by this.
History is going to be unmerciful in its documenting of this, no one is going to forget the sin here.
Yeah, fair enough; it was a mistake to ask for examples, I realize that now. One could probably go to twitter and search “chemtrails” and find a lot of words written seemingly without preceding critical thought. I don’t think many people would assert that chemtrail conspiracy theories are rife with the new generation, however.
Sure, it's an old trope to sit back and ask for examples, pretending your epistemic standard is whether someone on a forum can muster up the examples, and then when nobody does or you wave them away, you've proved that something isn't happening. You've done the investigation.
There's an extent to which that word was used to mean criticism of the previous administration's foreign policy. Politicians are generally not known for their honor, and will try to hide behind anything, no matter how sacrosanct.
Anyone who actually cares the tiniest bit about antisemitism would have the decoupling of Israel and the Jewish identity as the first order of business. Nothing comes even close.
A state consistently using Jews to excuse its actions, behavior which is validated by US policymakers, it's just orders of magnitude worse than anything else, Israel has promoted antisemitism more in a year than every other group in the last 50 years put together.
It's also really easy for Greenblatt to issue a denial.
That is, of course, unless it is true.
A denial wouldnt necessarily indicate that it is false (he has every reason to deny it, but lying is a risk) but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is, in fact, true.
There is a very low cost to denying lies, so the absence of a denial (unlike its presence) is a very good indicator.
"No rumour is true until it's categorically denied" -- Otto Von Bismarck.
> There is a very low cost to denying lies.
So people can just lie.
See: Clinton and Lewinski, the Profumo affair, Russian troop buildup on the Ukraine border 2022, Russian attacks on Ukraine 2014+, claims by NSA execs prior to the Snowden leaks, etc.
NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity of the recording in some way.
A state-controlled newspaper in an autocratic county? It could be something they did verify as true and just happens to align with their agenda - or it could be nonsense and they know it. Or they couldn't just shrugged and said "makes the US look bad, run it."
I think most people don't appreciate the levels of internal review and fact-checking that go on when a national paper in the US ends up with a big story in its lap.
> Schwartz said as much in an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December 31. “The New York Times said, ‘Let’s do an investigation into sexual violence’ — it was more a case of them having to convince me,” she said. Her host cut her off: “It was a proposal of The New York Times, the entire thing?”
> The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed
NYT, WaPo, etc aren't very likely to publish it. It'd be in the same bucket as Jeff Epstein - politically toxic and the majors aren't going to take the lead drawing attention to it even if it is plausible. Facts would need to be in the public sphere for a while and gaining traction before they pick it up.
It might be the Iranians making stuff up, although realistically that sort of activity is what should be expected without any leaks at all. It has been obvious since around 2016 that the corporate media doesn't have the ability to single-handily dominate the narrative any more and that will impact national security propaganda because, you know, what military would be stupid enough to leave that sort of messaging to chance?
Only worth noting if Greenblatt has denied the phone call.
E.g when Russia stopped denying the presence of North Korean troops, it was pretty much cast iron proof that Ukraine's recent videos of the prisoners were not fakes.
A denial wouldnt necessarily mean it wasn't true, but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is.
It would correlate strongly that 8200 alumni end up being educated and working in tech, and likely living in Tel Aviv. This is a group of people who, by and large, are not big fans of the current government.
Based on the pager incident, I'd think you should avoid companies that don't have a publicly-known link to Israel. It's not like Hezbollah thought they were buying pagers from 8200 alumni.
Having been involved in several ISO8583 implementations/integrations, it's really quite wild how different each one was in both structure and required content from one another.
Then they also die/get injured. Being in close contact with a terrorist is a dangerous pass-time, and armies targeting foreign threats need to accept some level of collateral damage. In this case, we have thousands of injured terrorists, with hundreds dead, and an additional fraction of those numbers being non-military targets (civilians). It's certainly unfortunate and unpleasant, but this is an excellent ratio.
[0] - https://www.dolthub.com/blog/2019-10-14-dolt-a-simple-exampl...
reply