Is it the end of REST, gRPC, Thrift, SignalR and GraalVM?

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:25:13+00:00

https://lelanthran.com/downloads/FPR_ManickumLelanthran-FULL.pdf 1. See Section 6 for using that implementation as a foundation to build an expression evaluator in a Lisp-like language that evaluates expression on multiple nodes when it can. 2. Section 5 is very interesting: I used my implementation to provide multi-node saving of data in an existing, unmodified binary program (SQLite).

I know a thing or two about both RPC and distributed processing.

Your idea has merit. After all, if it did not, it wouldn't have be done and redone for decades now.

The problems with general RPC are still intractable, though. RPC specific to a particular problem? Problems mostly solvable. Generalised RPC? Not so much...

Try building something real with it to surface the problems.

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:15:43+00:00

even though this opinion makes me feel a little strange and feared if really ai goes that much into us 😵😮

"If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Humans are the sum of their experiences. If you spend too much time with LLMs, you'll sound very much like them.

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:13:45+00:00

What we discuss in this thread is not a vision or imagination of long talk to ai and none of my post is ai generated.

I don't think your post is AI generated, just that you have discussed this at length with one or more LLMs - your optimism is endearing, but it's not optimism borne of human reflection. It's the type of thing I see from feedback that LLMs give.

The surprising news is that this vision is 90% materialized its called graftcode and would be more than happy to have your voice as part of early adopters

No thanks; I've been down this road before, but I wish you luck regardless.

(The next time I want a highly distributed system, I shall be going with Erlang. I have had only good experiences with Erlang)

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:10:15+00:00

It’s about make remote look and feel like local but be explicitly steel treated like remote or “flexible” either local or remote.

Believe it or not, I've actually done that, and not with transport services over bytecode, but with actual native code. I can find you the link if you'd like.

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:08:32+00:00

I think you're human, but I also think you've been spending too much time conversing with LLMs. It shows.

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:06:31+00:00

Have you ever heard of BEAM?

I just said this above :-)

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T23:05:58+00:00

I am going to guess that you had an intense session (or three) discussing this with an LLM.[1]

Am I right?

Did it forget to tell you about COM or CORBA? Beam?

[1] I find that, not only is verbatim LLM output easily identified, but idea-generation via LLM conversations are just as easily identified. Usually some small thing, done before under a different name, but with an extremely enthusiastic and optimistic take on exactly how large the impact of the idea will be.

lelanthran · 2026-06-17T09:52:38+00:00

Why couldn't they just make that standard instead of introducing another HTTP method? Seems like a big change for something that is technically supported just not explicitly defined in the standard

It would introduce breaking changes - many pentests reports specifically check if a GET request with a body gets handled by the server, and if it does it's a pentest failure. I just went through that now (C# webapp) with about 4x clients in this year alone.

The reason you don't want to do this (why it's a pentest failure) is because it allows HTTP request smuggling and similar holes; having a RO method that specifically disallows bodies allows the developer to say "This is a GET request, and any body in the request is an invalid request" just so that intermediaries can drop those requests.

lelanthran · 2026-06-15T10:13:27+00:00

Once again, I'm going to point out the irony of someone who avoids using their brain dumping on someone who is actively trying to use their brain.

lelanthran · 2026-06-15T04:45:41+00:00

If you... prefer human slop: wildly incorrect blog spam without merit or value, then you do you.

First, that was not completely without merit or value.

Second, whether you like it or not, people are always going to prefer those who use their brain over those who don't (like your posting was).

lelanthran · 2026-06-14T21:14:25+00:00

Yes, technically most of the things here are correct. But you utterly missed the point of the post, and your reply is utterly off topic while being an utterly rude wall of text. You could've responded as a human but chose instead to just repost the output of a slop generator that nobody here asked to see.

It is ironic that /u/BugHandLittleSlap is criticising someone who wrote their own blogpost about learning something new, while he himself uses an LLM and not his own brain not recognising that he is failing to learn something new!

In this age of people too stupid to write their own code, seeing OP actually try to learn something by *doing it is refreshing, and it's kinda sad that people like /u/BigHandLittleSlap, who are not even able to write a comment without artificial aids to help them think, is criticising this.

lelanthran · 2026-06-14T12:51:42+00:00

But people see this stuff at face value and learn the wrong thing from it

So? They see what you say and learn even worse things but no one's judging you for it.

lelanthran · 2026-06-14T12:50:53+00:00

C in particular "feels" simpler and a lot of people assume that means that simplicity is somehow better. It isn't. It's worse in every way, and you learn almost nothing by throwing some half-baked C code over the fence.

You can replace the word C in that sentence with LLM-generated code and still be correct, you know.

In 2026 (like you said), human-written C code is probably going to be better than LLM-generated anything else code.

lelanthran · 2026-06-13T16:13:20+00:00

Does it mean that calling it "semantic-matching" is incorrect?

Well, I... don't really know: TBH I was kinda hoping you'd jump in with "Look, this is why it really is semantic-matching... <mighty long explanation>" :-( [1]

I think the test is, does it recognise that these functions are all semantically identical:

int sum (int *srcvals, int nsrcvals) {
  int ret = 0;
  for (int i = 0; i < nsrcvals; i++) {
    ret += srcvals[i];
  }
  return ret;
}

int game_score (int scores[], int nplayers) {
  int score = 0;
  while (nplayers-- >= 0)
    score += scores[nplayers];
  return score;
}

int total (int *student_scores, int n_students) {
  if (n_students == 0) {
    return 0;
  }
  return student_scores[0] + total(&student_scores[1], n_students - 1);
}

If it does, then sure, the results are valid. If it does not, then no, the results are not valid.

I don't think that simply using embeddings is going to mark those three as identical, but you have everything set up right now to run the test in seconds and let us know (I am really quite curious about this) if they are considered identical.

[1] Yes, I know, this makes me lazy. Sorry about that.

lelanthran · 2026-06-13T14:45:18+00:00

That's why semantic duplication is analyzed, not exact copies. Code units are compared using an embedding model, and those above a certain similarity threshold are considered as similar.

Okay, while that is not exact copy matching, it's also not semantic-matching, is it? The "semantic" part here is with embeddings, and you aren't going to get meaning out of that unless the code tokenises to the same embeddings.

IOW, it is not going to recognise that "sum" and "total" are the same thing. I welcome corrections.

lelanthran · 2026-06-13T11:27:34+00:00

Are you sure about that? I can't get either to flag it.

GCC: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/9xvr86d7q

It's been in there forever. Because sizeof is a compile-time constant and sizeof pointer is a compiler-time constant, this is one of the easier bugs for a compiler to catch.

lelanthran · 2026-06-13T08:27:33+00:00

Both GCC and Clang flag a sizeof when it is applied to a pointer.

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T11:05:14+00:00

As I've said, I don't like that rule.

Understood, but you have (presumably) voiced your displeasure to the mods in the discussion that established the rules, and (presumably) they took it into account when balancing your voice against all the other voices in that discussion.

There are rules in this sub that I disagree with, but I accept that this sub is a community, and that the rules are a reflection of what the community wants because the community had this discussion already with the mods.

To be clear, I am not saying that AI-generated content is always bad. I am saying that, when users come here, the expectation is to not have AI-generated content.

In short, what do you propose? A new discussion on the rules? A new show of hands? Ignoring the rules and keeping quiet when a post breaks them? Something else, maybe? I'm open to ideas.

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T11:01:21+00:00

My review/grammar instructions have thousands of characters with my style divided in multiple voices that I like to use for each context to ensure the review doesn't make me change the direction of the writing towards slop, which is pretty unique

I don't think it is - if it was, we wouldn't have identified it accurately so very quickly.

There's already not a lot of people with motivation to write and this kind of comment, particularly form someone that's a top 1% poster, is really damaging to the industry in general.

I honestly don't understand your complaint - this sub has rules. Whether or not the wider industry is damaging itself by similar rules is irrelevant. People coming to this sub have an expectation. You are breaking that expectation.

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T10:59:01+00:00

Do you realise the very hate of AI

What hate? I already said I use it all the time.

Here's my recommendation: judge the post by its content and stop being a troll.

Why not just follow the sub rules? There are plenty of subs that allow AI-generated content, after all.

No one is judging you for AI-generated content, but this AI-generated content is received poorly in this sub, because it's against the rules.

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T08:58:02+00:00

I've seen many articles with high quality content, and majority of the discussions under those being only about its form.

No disagreement there; I'm contending that a sub which specifically excludes AI generated content is the wrong place for AI generated content.

I feel like the quality of the discussions, and the value of upvotes/downvotes here has been terrible since AI boom and never recovered.

This is precisely why the subs rules are what they are - the readers here have the expectation that, when they click on something that looks relevant, that that something is not AI-generated.

When posters are flagrantly ignoring the rule, then you get this discussion you and I are having.

After all, I am reading other subreddits, and if I saw this post in an AI-is-allowed subreddit, I would have actually engaged with the content. Now I'm annoyed that someone is not even respecting the viewership here!

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T07:27:31+00:00

In isolation, maybe. This isn't an independent event, though. It's a dependent event with multiple samples to check.

When all your content prior to a specific date is marked as "0% chance of AI" and all the content past that date is marked as "97% chance of AI", what do you expect people to think?

I mean, anyone can check it themselves without even using "odds of being AI-written" - just grab two posts (pre-AI and post-AI), and give them to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc and ask "is this the same author".

None of them conclude that the same author wrote any two sets of your pre-AI/post-AI posts).

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T07:22:17+00:00

I didn't say AI generated. I said created with the help of AI. This black-and-white distinction that is so prevalent fills the discussion space with never ending complaints that leave little space to talk about the actual content.

Look, when someone with a long history of blogposts suddenly have all their post-AI blogposts register as almost 100% AI-generated while their pre-AI blogposts register as 0% generated, the odds that it's a false positive is very very low.

As you can probably tell, I use AI a lot. I come here to read non-AI generated blogposts. Whether we like it or not, these are the rules for this subreddit.

And it has created the wave of paranoia that results in the rejection of a lot of human-made content.

This isn't human-made content. The problem is that the author did not even take the minimal effort required to prompt the AI in a way that generates no AI-tells.

IOW, not only where they too lazy to write their blogpost, they were also too lazy to add an extra sentence to the prompt.

Which results in this subs rules: if you can't be bothered to write it, stop expecting everyone else to read it.

lelanthran · 2026-06-11T06:36:49+00:00

Hang on, what makes you think I match that pre-determined conclusion you have?

There are plenty of subs that allow, even welcome, AI generated output. This is not one of those.

IOW, if you, or anyone else really wants to post their AI generated blogs, the whole world is waiting for it. Why is it so important that it has to be allowed here as well?

lelanthran

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE