It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
> It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered. Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
> Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered
I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
Why? Shouldn't everybody already know that using AI to find bugs for oneself is amazingly efficient, but using AI to submit bug reports for others is quite the opposite. Burden of verification and all.
I personally think using AI is of no problem for certain cases. It is absolutely pissing off when someone tries to generate slops that too verbose to review only to increase the complexity of the codebase meaninglessly.
They seem to be doing fine. Tigerbeetle and Ghostty are two projects that continue to do well and are written in Zig. The foundation’s funding also seems to be doing well. They are continuing to make releases.
Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain.
Reading their comment it sounds like they wanted to confirm the bug existed with AI, not sure they ever said they had AI write the code. Why have such a dumb policy?
If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?
Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored.
Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do.
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
They don’t, at least not any more. Andrew Kelley has explicitly stated that he sees the value of using LLMs to uncover bugs. Inspired by sqllite project.
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult.
Seems like "parallel construction" where you show you actually understand and can explain the issue independent of an LLM would be the way to go. No need to mention how you found the bug as long as you can explain what the bug is, why it matters, and how to repro.
Lying to get around a project policy you disagree with is immature. They have the right to run things the way they want, either accept their rules or leave the project be.
If they really insist on no LLM involvement at all then they're going to fall behind and lose out. Your LLM use case seems really very conservative - you didn't write any code with it, you just use it to confirm the bug. There are many OSS projects that are also taking a similar hardline against LLMs - people are going to fork them and then move on. I've had LLMs fix bugs/add features to a couple of projects like this and, well, they're missing out on the fixes/added features that I'm using locally.
Can you offer any specifics? The ToC looks quite extensive, which to me indicates a lot of design decisions needed to be made (probably involving many people) and unclear how that process might be accelerated by AI.
Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
> Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right?
One-shot, no, but there are a bunch of people pretty much solo-building their personal ideal language with AI and it's going quite well. You need to know just enough about language design to be dangerous, but you don't need to be a seasoned pro.
It seems like such a strange thing to do, building a language that you aren't going to write by hand. It's guaranteed to perform worse at higher cost, fill up a lot more of the context window, and burn a ton more reasoning tokens.
If you're using AI, a language with a large training set is going to win.
Been thinking about doing this myself (did some PL in grad school but it's been a long time), but I find myself wanting to reach for a Scheme (using macros to grow the language I want) and customize it or build something atop Janet.
Curious why you wanted a more ML / Rust / Scala inspired syntax. (Personal preference here is totally valid btw, just curious.)
None of these systems can. They need enormous training. They need alignment and reinforcement. They need harnesses. And most importantly they need a human that knows how to write and develop a C compiler.
The ISO specifications are not sufficient. Neither are the System V guidelines. Not even spec tests and compcert.
You're not going to one-shot it, but over the course of a couple of months of evenings you could come up with something usable/interesting if you manage the LLM well.
Yep, it's true, but the reality of what it would take to actually fork and commence with healthy use of AI alongside with the elusive soft/hard stance needed to lead technically and socially is probably a bigger challenge than anyone is willing to take on! Soo.. slow and (rather?) well it goes for Zig.
Nope, but why would it matter? Nobody is stopping you from writing Zig code with an LLM, the policy you are referring to is only relevant to the compiler source code - which must be ABSOLUTELY human reviewed - for security reasons, maintainability reasons, etc.
The fix could not be backported to LLVM 22 because it changed the LLVM library ABI. We also could not skip straight to LLVM 23 because that would make life harder for distro package maintainers.
Back in a more adult age, the way that this was handled was "We've benefited from our past collaboration, but we believe a new direction is needed going forward."
For some reason--COVID brain rot, poorly-socialized people coming online, general increase in viciousness in the population, who knows!--people have forgotten the utility and purpose of boring polite manners and communication.
Would recommend checking out the Zig state of the (tagged) union as well.
https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
> It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered. Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
> Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered
I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
> It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
or substantially worse: "<chat transcript dump>"
Why? Shouldn't everybody already know that using AI to find bugs for oneself is amazingly efficient, but using AI to submit bug reports for others is quite the opposite. Burden of verification and all.
There's a difference between Opus 4.5 and Astra 6
With regards to whether when it finds a legitimate bug, it should be given weight?
With regards to whether a blanket ban has a payoff
citation needed
Warming up to LLMS... explicitly _after_ full branch-coverage and fuzzing.
I personally think using AI is of no problem for certain cases. It is absolutely pissing off when someone tries to generate slops that too verbose to review only to increase the complexity of the codebase meaninglessly.
I'm always impressed by Zig's targets support. I'm starting to think that it might be the only language that competes with C on this regard.
I'm looking forward to see what the new build integration can unlock on the tooling side.
What I'm looking for the most for the next release(s):
- New stackless coroutine IO implementation
- First class fuzzer tooling
How is Zig doing as a project? I remember they took a hard line against AI
They seem to be doing fine. Tigerbeetle and Ghostty are two projects that continue to do well and are written in Zig. The foundation’s funding also seems to be doing well. They are continuing to make releases.
It looks like they're spending 5 months what should be a 1 month job these days.
Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain.
Sounds like you violated the clearly stated project rules and admitted to it. Are you surprised that they're not engaging with you?
Reading their comment it sounds like they wanted to confirm the bug existed with AI, not sure they ever said they had AI write the code. Why have such a dumb policy?
It's a violation of project rules to confirm bugs with AI?
Read it yourself: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/
>If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome.
>No LLMs for finding bugs.
>No talking about use of chatbot/LLM services.
I've said it before and I'll say it again- it's a cult that bans dissent
> The Zig community is decentralized. Anyone is free to start and maintain their own community, which is not subject to these rules.
For the record, there isn't even uniformity of thought on LLMs within the core team, let alone the broader Zig community.
If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?
Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored.
> If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?
To clarify, do you mean someone who isn't part of the core team?
Yes ... pretty damn stupid.
"NO LLMs for finding bugs" is easier written as "Don't use the tools your adversaries will"
I've written code a long time and that's probably the dumbest rule I've seen.
Yeah, the maintainers of a DOA hobby project should certainly be allowed to run it however they want imo
Pointing out something that is not good doesn't require surprise at the fact that it happened
Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do.
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
Claude Code has 13.4k open bugs: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues
Show me a popular open source project that doesn't have a large number of open issues and I'll show you one that has a triage bot auto-close them.
Some have both, despite using an auto-close bot! OC is at 4.6K open and 24K closed issues. https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues
They don’t, at least not any more. Andrew Kelley has explicitly stated that he sees the value of using LLMs to uncover bugs. Inspired by sqllite project.
https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
Ah, so yet another language in the long line of "I'm smart enough to use this but you the user are not"
Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult.
The popular LLM projects have infinitely many more bugs than the zig project does this is a ridiculous message.
If it's generating detectably incorrect code, why do you need an LLM to tell you it's a bug?
> breaks the project rules
> gets ignored
Who could have forseen this.
Their policy is immature. Clicking little upvote and downvote buttons is immature. Better to just lie and duplicate the issue.
Seems like "parallel construction" where you show you actually understand and can explain the issue independent of an LLM would be the way to go. No need to mention how you found the bug as long as you can explain what the bug is, why it matters, and how to repro.
Lying to get around a project policy you disagree with is immature. They have the right to run things the way they want, either accept their rules or leave the project be.
If they really insist on no LLM involvement at all then they're going to fall behind and lose out. Your LLM use case seems really very conservative - you didn't write any code with it, you just use it to confirm the bug. There are many OSS projects that are also taking a similar hardline against LLMs - people are going to fork them and then move on. I've had LLMs fix bugs/add features to a couple of projects like this and, well, they're missing out on the fixes/added features that I'm using locally.
People keep promising me that I'll be left behind, but somehow it never seems to happen.
They are doing fine, all this "left behind" talk has no basis other than cope.
Can you offer any specifics? The ToC looks quite extensive, which to me indicates a lot of design decisions needed to be made (probably involving many people) and unclear how that process might be accelerated by AI.
Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
> Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right?
One-shot, no, but there are a bunch of people pretty much solo-building their personal ideal language with AI and it's going quite well. You need to know just enough about language design to be dangerous, but you don't need to be a seasoned pro.
I'm doing it myself: https://zena-lang.dev/
It seems like such a strange thing to do, building a language that you aren't going to write by hand. It's guaranteed to perform worse at higher cost, fill up a lot more of the context window, and burn a ton more reasoning tokens.
If you're using AI, a language with a large training set is going to win.
Been thinking about doing this myself (did some PL in grad school but it's been a long time), but I find myself wanting to reach for a Scheme (using macros to grow the language I want) and customize it or build something atop Janet.
Curious why you wanted a more ML / Rust / Scala inspired syntax. (Personal preference here is totally valid btw, just curious.)
Claude can’t one-shot a C compiler.
None of these systems can. They need enormous training. They need alignment and reinforcement. They need harnesses. And most importantly they need a human that knows how to write and develop a C compiler.
The ISO specifications are not sufficient. Neither are the System V guidelines. Not even spec tests and compcert.
You're not going to one-shot it, but over the course of a couple of months of evenings you could come up with something usable/interesting if you manage the LLM well.
Nobody is one-shotting big projects. Even humans can't do that.
Fabrice Bellard might be an exception.
Yep, it's true, but the reality of what it would take to actually fork and commence with healthy use of AI alongside with the elusive soft/hard stance needed to lead technically and socially is probably a bigger challenge than anyone is willing to take on! Soo.. slow and (rather?) well it goes for Zig.
Slow and steady wins the race
Parables aren't reality.
Anthropic levels of slowness (pacing)?
in tech? really?
Language design and implementation is much more in the realm of actual computer science than it is "tech"
In programming languages, usually. Building software on top of a rapidly-changing language is not often a recipe for success.
Yes, the Lindy effect applies in tech too.
And apparently ignores legitimate compiler bugs on the way that someone happened to ask an LLM to double check their diagnosis
Im really enjoying using it, works great tbh
Seems to be C++ing which is disappointing. Looking more at C3 and Odin for cases where I'd hoped Zig to land.
Odin scratches this “stick shift” itch for me better than anything else. Highly recommended.
In what sense are the C++ing? Too complicated or what?
can you elaborate on what you mean by "C++ing"?
C3 is honestly so good and a bit underrated.
It's my favorite of the new round of languages by far. I just wish it had a bigger ecosystem.
Any change to the AI policy?
Nope, but why would it matter? Nobody is stopping you from writing Zig code with an LLM, the policy you are referring to is only relevant to the compiler source code - which must be ABSOLUTELY human reviewed - for security reasons, maintainability reasons, etc.
Although I understand that upgrading LLVM version is a lot of work, it's a bit frustating that loop vectorization is still disabled.
The fix could not be backported to LLVM 22 because it changed the LLVM library ABI. We also could not skip straight to LLVM 23 because that would make life harder for distro package maintainers.
You should not worry. They said they would make a short release cycle for updating to 23.
https://ziglang.org/news/0.17.0-released/
> Please consider a recurring donation so that we can offer more billable hours to our core team members.
Just don't be surprised if the project BFDL talks shit about you or your company later.
(Still a good language though, credit where credit is due.)
I wouldn't consider donating until the project leader has demonstrated considerably more personal maturity.
would you rather the reverse to be true? if someone donates enough that's sufficient for the BDFL to silence their opinions?
yes.
A simple, "this entity is a sponsor, and therefore there is a conflict of interest and we will not comment on recent controversy" is enough.
If it's big enough, refuse to take further contributions.
I know it's not entertaining, but that's why we have video games.
Back in a more adult age, the way that this was handled was "We've benefited from our past collaboration, but we believe a new direction is needed going forward."
For some reason--COVID brain rot, poorly-socialized people coming online, general increase in viciousness in the population, who knows!--people have forgotten the utility and purpose of boring polite manners and communication.