Not just a learning exercise, it's also very useful, it allows you to expose application internals in a controlled way so that they can be scripted without exposing your entire codebase to untrusted code.
> I guess for me the questions is, at what point do you feel it would be reasonable to this without the experts involved in your case?
I don't know if it was the intent but these kind of questions bother me, the seem to hint at an agenda, "when can I have a farm of idiots with keyboards paid minimum wage churn out products indistinguishable from expertly designed applications".
To me that's the danger of AI, not it's purported intelligence, but our manifested greed.
Yeah, I mean that is definitely the intent of the question and it's absolutely one of the factors that's driving money into AI.
Assisting competent engineers certainly has value, but it's not an easy calculation to assess that value compared to the actual non-subsidized cost of AI's current state.
On the other hand having a farm of idiots, or even no idiots at all, just computers, churning out high quality applications is a completely different value proposition.
> I'm interested to see whether the final feature set will be larger than what you'd get by creating a type-safe language with a pythonic syntax and compiling that to native, rather than building custom hardware.
It almost sounds like you're asking for Nim ( https://nim-lang.org/ ); and there are some projects using it for microcontroller programming, since it compiles down to C (for ESP32, last I saw).
Not specifically about Cursor, but no. The market gave us big tech oligarchy and enshittification. I'm starting to believe the market tends to reward the shittiest players out there.
> War with Canada is what Trump seems to have in mind. Fentanyl is not the only the big lie. That Canada does not really exist is the other. The way that this fiction is formulated is strangely Putinist. Trump's rhetoric about Canada uncannily echoes that of Russian propagandists towards Ukraine. The claim that the country is not real; that its people really want to join us; that the border is an artificial line; that history must lead to annexation... This is all familiar from Putin, as is Trump’s curious ambiguity about a neighbor: they are our brothers, they are also our enemies; they are doing terrible things to us, they also don’t really exist.
> The imperialist rhetoric has to be seen for what it is, which is preparation not just for trade war but for war itself.
I just don't see how states like California would go along with that, not to mention the EU, Russia (because of control over the arctic) or China (maybe Trump gives them the go ahead on Taiwan).
reply