I’ve got many catholic relatives that describe themselves as vegetarians and eat fish. Language can be surprisingly imprecise and dependent upon tons of assumptions.
> WiB is different from Move Fast and Break Things and again different from YAGNI though.
Yes, which is why I listed all three.
It's not about if the vibe coding results in any of these strictly, it's that the vibe coder can claim that the low quality doesn't matter and cite any of these as support for why the low quality doesn't matter.
I’m very curious if we’re going to ever get another “deepseek moment. Qwen is starting to feel like it could be one. But for it to be people would have to decide to care. It took about a month, I think mid December-mid January, from the deepseek paper for the “moment” so it doesn’t necessarily have to be right away.
What's gone unnoticed with the Gemma 4 release is that it crowned Qwen as the small model SOTA. So for the first time a Chinese lab holds the frontier in a model category. It is a minor DeepSeek model, because western labs have to catch up with Alibaba now.
depends on usage, Gemma 4 is better on visuals/html/css and language understanding (Which probably plays a role in prompting). But it's worse at code in general compared to Qwen 3.5 27B.
LispPad Go is a similar tool focusing on scheme R7RS. It’s been great for writing little scripts. Been using it for a few years now. Racket would be compelling though because of the number of libraries.
It does actually have a lot of R7RS support (like #!fold-case) however it doesn't seem to work with polar complex numbers (e.g; 2@1.5) or complex numbers with infnan (e.g; 3+inf.0i or +inf.0+3i).
Author from LispPad here... Polar complex number literals are actually not part of R7RS and (make-polar ...) would need to be used for writing portable code. Complex number literals with infinite parts are supported, but I noticed that LispPad might behave differently as it does apply mathematical equivalences that are being ignored in other Scheme implementations. Let me know if you see a behavior that violates the R7RS spec. Thanks!
Thanks for working on LispPad, I'm really enjoying using it.
> Polar complex number literals are actually not part of R7RS
I actually thought they were part of the spec. Specifically, I am referring to the last paragraph from section 6.2.5 of R7RS small <https://small.r7rs.org/attachment/r7rs.pdf>
This is the excerpt from the pdf:
6.2.5. Syntax of numerical constants
...
There are two notations provided for non-real complex
numbers: the rectangular notation a+bi, where a is the
real part and b is the imaginary part; and the polar no-
tation r@θ, where r is the magnitude and θ is the phase
(angle) in radians. These are related by the equation
a + bi = r cos θ + (r sin θ)i. All of a, b, r , and θ are real
numbers.
The assumption made by many in the early 20th century, spurred on by the recent successes of unification and formalization, was essentially that we could formally describe the entire universe. Godel’s proof shows that if you attempt to formally describe something there’s either an inconsistency or it’s incomplete. That doesn’t mean you cannot describe the behavior of a dog formally but it does mean the same formula which encodes the behavior will either be inconsistent or incomplete. It might only be inconsistent or incomplete when applied outside of defining the behavior of a dog though. That’s why the little preamble about unification exists in this post but it’s not very well tied into the rest of the post.
reply