It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
> I definitely know some girls who'd love this, and see this as having fun.
That's hard to believe. Then you should know at least an order of magnitude more "boys" who would love this: At an estimated 95% male ratio on HN, 20 times as many. If the "some girls" you "definitely" know are 3, then you would be expected to know about 3x20=60 males who are interested in "fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting", which sounds about equally hard to believe.
Because it would not even pass initial code review for most developers. Most people use short review prompt, with yes/no answers.
Imagine the code compilers (or some analysis tool) gives several concurrency and memory warnings. It has easy workaround (just annotate strange code, with links to explanations that this is workaround for low level bugs).
I am too tired of shitty "safe" Rust code, with 'unsafe' section around every library call (not case here, just an example)! Be clear with that, it takes 15 minutes and 10 cents!
This project could have correct concurrent code and design, but around much narrower definitions. But most people will not go too deep with review to find it!
It's a play on the classic pop hit song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"
It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
Hi, author of the blog post here, that was in fact not the joke. I'm a girl, I care. I just like playing off of that song's title.
All girls or most girls?
I definitely know some girls who'd love this, and see this as having fun.
> I definitely know some girls who'd love this, and see this as having fun.
That's hard to believe. Then you should know at least an order of magnitude more "boys" who would love this: At an estimated 95% male ratio on HN, 20 times as many. If the "some girls" you "definitely" know are 3, then you would be expected to know about 3x20=60 males who are interested in "fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting", which sounds about equally hard to believe.
[flagged]
Why should anyone care what comments your agent has on code?
> Or add section to explain most common agent comments.
Shouldn't your agent explain its own comments? why would the author of a fast queue care what your agent says?
Because it would not even pass initial code review for most developers. Most people use short review prompt, with yes/no answers.
Imagine the code compilers (or some analysis tool) gives several concurrency and memory warnings. It has easy workaround (just annotate strange code, with links to explanations that this is workaround for low level bugs).
I am too tired of shitty "safe" Rust code, with 'unsafe' section around every library call (not case here, just an example)! Be clear with that, it takes 15 minutes and 10 cents!
This project could have correct concurrent code and design, but around much narrower definitions. But most people will not go too deep with review to find it!
> Most people use short review prompt, with yes/no answers
I don't. I review code by hand, like I have for 20 years. I think you might have some sample bias.
> Most people use short review prompt
I don't think this is true at all.
This project was likely not written just to be convenient for you.
And if it's got value for you, hey, it's open source. Spend the 15 minutes and 10 cents, it's a bargain.
How to get access to your agent?
Go away