zlacker

>>srames+(OP)
One of the big open questions for me right now concerns how library dependencies are used.

Most of the big ones are things like skia, harfbuzz, wgpu - all totally reasonable IMO.

The two that stand out for me as more notable are html5ever for parsing HTML and taffy for handling CSS grids and flexbox - that's vendored with an explanation of some minor changes here: https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender/blob/19bf1036105d4e...

Taffy a solid library choice, but it's probably the most robust ammunition for anyone who wants to argue that this shouldn't count as a "from scratch" rendering engine.

I don't think it detracts much if at all from FastRender as an example of what an army of coding agents can help a single engineer achieve in a few weeks of work.

>>simonw+vf
Any views on the nature of "maintainability" shifting now? If a fleet of agents demonstrated the ability to bootstrap a project like that, would that be enough indication to you that orchestration would be able to carry the code base forward? I've seen fully llm'd codebases hit a certain critical weight where agents struggled to maintain coherent feature development, keeping patterns aligned, as well as spiralling into quick fixes.

>>janoel+Zh
Almost no idea at all. Coding agents are messing with all 25+ years of my existing intuitions about what features cost to build and maintain.

Features that I'd normally never have considered building because they weren't worth the added time and complexity are now just a few well-structured prompts away.

But how much will it cost to maintain those features in the future? So far the answer appears to be a whole lot less than I would previously budget for, but I don't have any code more than a few months old that was built ~100% by coding agents, so it's way too early to judge how maintenance is going to work over a longer time period.

>>simonw+Yi
> But how much will it cost to maintain those features in the future?

Very little if they have good specs and tests.