Comment by gamblor956
5 days ago
It sounds like the real problem was that the programmer was not familiar with the tools they were using and decided to dig themselves out of a hole of their own making by turning to AI instead of learning to use their tools better.
What the fuck are you talking about?
A bug in a dependency means I’m not familiar with the tools I’m using? What exactly should I have had a priori knowledge of that would have solved this? That the whoami crate, which I don’t use, but was a transitive dependency, changed a default which affected the sqlx crate in a way that they didn’t know about either, in a way that produced an error that only happened in the CI environment and not locally? And I should have known this how exactly?
I hate what AI is doing to our industry and I hate the constant deluge of slop I have to review every day. I’m not an AI lover by any means. But Jesus Christ why do people bend over in any direction imaginable to pretend that reality isn’t reality (LLM’s must be useless because I personally don’t like them) and blame someone 3 levels away from a problem just to make themselves feel better.
But sure, no, it must be me “not knowing my tools enough” because I’m not aware of bugs in other projects that their maintainers themselves are not aware of. Because the alternative is that AI might actually be useful in some way, and we can’t admit that, can we?
Welcome to how programming used to be...
Not being aware of the limitations of the tools you're using is a hallmark of junior-level programmers. That's why experience matters; if it was just about raw coding talent nobody would care about experience. But making mistakes like this is supposed to be how you learn.
Unless of course you turn over the learning to the AI, as you did here. Otherwise you would have known that the defaults you're complaining about are clearly identified in the README files you didn't read.
> Otherwise you would have known that the defaults you're complaining about are clearly identified in the README files you didn't read.
None of what you’re saying about my scenario is true at all. You’re hallucinating shit worse than LLM’s. There was no README that outlined the behavior. There was no change log entry. The sqlx crate did not document a single thing related to this at all. You’re missing critical information and making enormous assumptions, and jumping to attacking my character as the very first step.
Maybe you googled just enough about the sqlx and whoami crates to come to a wrong conclusion. Because there was a changelog entry related to whoami in the sqlx release notes. And yes I read it. But guess what: that wasn’t the issue. The issue is a legitimate bug in sqlx related to how they use the whoami crate. There’s no clearly identified README entry. There’s just a sqlx bug in 0.9.
I’d explain in detail exactly what the bug is but you’re not interested because you’ve already made your conclusion about me before you have any information about what happened. (Hint: the whoami crate decided to move the functionality that actually grabs your username behind the `std` crate feature, and made the std feature enabled by default. But the sqlx crate has always included whoami with `default_features = false`. I’ll leave you to guess what happened as a result. Before you answer, you should also learn how cargo treats crate features in a build where the whoami crate is linked multiple times with different features. Once you think you have it figured out, go and find this README entry I should have read.)
Edit: actually, fuck it, I’m sick of being coy. Here’s the sqlx regression: https://github.com/transact-rs/sqlx/pull/4275
Note how it’s still open as of this writing.
Note how it’s not “clearly stated in the README”. It’s a bug. A bug that’s still not fixed.