Fediverse & AI Coding Tools & Vibe Coding
Technical Discussion
1
Posts
1
Posters
12
Views
-
Fediverse & AI Coding Tools & Vibe Coding
...
I noticed 2 or 3 people lately using AI coding tools to create Fediverse software.
2 of them even seemed to be Vibe Coding.
...
I have been programming for over 30 years. I am probably not going to Vibe Code, but — I do recognize that it can be empowering to non-programmers
https://mastodon.social/@reiver/115639716286184653
...
#ActivityPub #AICodingTools #Fedidev #Fedidevs #Fediverse #JSONLD #VibeCoding
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
definitely not a fan of this. tbh, there should just not be a global feed that new accounts see, because they see a lot of stuff they don't understand or know the community norms for, and that leads to bad engagement.
-
There is the Web Share API, and the future Web Share Targets API, but I think we could also align Web Share with FedCM and be able to say "I want to share to this type of application"
-
@reiver i think the disjunction between Object and Link was actually unnecessary. https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/666
i also think there's too much emphasis on types when there really shouldn't be -- it's the *properties* that you end up using almost all of the time. pretty much the only types that actually matter are the Activity types (because you can't infer those).
-
-
@reiver Did you and I discuss queryfy a while ago, or was it one of my other projects?
Just wondering whether I owe you a heads up since queryfy has been bumped up to v0.3.0
-
With ActivityPub / ActivityStreams...
To me, it feels like there should have been something that is a common parent of both 'Object' and 'Link'.
That just had the "name", "nameMap", and "preview" fields (along with "id" and "type, of course) — since that is what 'Object' and 'Link' share in common.
I'll just call this common parent: 'Entity'.
...
It could have even been an opportunity to talk about how to handle unknown types.
-
@soapdog@toot.cafe hmm... just thinking aloud here.
You posit in another post that the network effects inflate exponentially:
> Push models are resource hogs that approach exponential growth in a large network like the fediverse
That's not true. If you post a message then it sends a copy to each follower. That's linear growth. If you collapse recipients via shared inboxes you can reduce that further.
If you're referring to the torrent of requests that happen if your post is shared (the "thundering herd" problem) then that's actually a PULL happening from those requesting instances!
Secondly, in a pull model of AP, you would need to continually poll servers of all your followers so as to approach a real-time effect. You'd be polling servers over and over again, and many of them would have nothing new, with so much wasted traffic.
If your expectations include semi real-time updates, the push model is much more performant, in my humble opinion.
-
@evan @mariusor @silverpill i think we probably need to revisit the user story of creating multiple objects at once, or more accurately, the user story of minting and binding multiple identifiers at once.
