textlog
profilefollowfather, cyclist, #haskellnotesfollow, #emacsnotesfollowwrote:
I find myself building bespoke tooling for my own #swdevnotesfollow and #ainotesfollow workflows these days, not only because of the obvious reason of software being so much cheaper to build, but also because there are SO MANY options for solving any given problem that it feels impossible to evaluate all of them. If it's not a crucial piece of tech for a work problem then it often feels like paving my own way is both cheaper mentally (kind of amazing that's true these days) and probably a better fit.
..then of course I have to contend with - "Is this going to be a maintenance nightmare in the future?" and then I still usually conclude "no, the maintenance will be aided by the same approach that the construction was". It's interesting how dramatically and quickly the scales have changed in this equation - and for such a wide range of software.
For example, I am looking for a coding agent coordinator with a particular (but not all that insane) set of requirements. I used both Claude and Perplexity to show me options and break them down by fit against my requirements. I got completely different lists! No overlap! And no perfect fits.
WezTerm for local and remote multiplexing really is the ideal experience - it's so much better than using zellij, tmux, zmx, and friends.. I don't think they pitch this feature hard enough on their site. I think the in-terminal multiplexers have their place - e.g. if you need to access from mobile (no WezTerm there) or on machines where you simply don't want to install WezTerm for some reason. WezTermrm could probably eliminate that last one by packaging just the mux server.
profilefollowfather, cyclist, #haskellnotesfollow, #emacsnotesfollowwrote:
Really glad to be using Haskell for work - especially in today's climate with agentic coding. Our team uses containers to keep our development environment consistent across team members, though, and most agent sandbox approaches want to either offload your work fully to the cloud or they want to sandbox the agent harness process itself. We're not ready for full cloud based development (yet?) and sandboxing just the agent doesn't work for us when the agent needs to run docker. #haskellnotesfollow #ainotesfollow
... because letting the agent run docker gives them a too-easy escape hatch from their sandbox. So we're currently stuck with using VMs. This turns out to be tricky but seems do-able. My current approach is to provision a VM image and use Incus for the execution. My main goal is to keep my current workflow of local/non-agent dev working seamlessly and share the source with the VM/agent.
This means sharing my working dirs with the agent VM but overlaying artifact dirs from VM-owned block devices so we don't take too big of an IO perf hit. I also don't want the agent to be able to git push so that means we need some quirky git config to rewrite origin paths and thread through some agent specific PATs ("thanks" GitHub) for read-only repo access. These ALSO need to be threaded through to the development containers - they need to clone private repos.
... in the end, this seems to work but I haven't lived with it for long. There are still some quality of life issues to work out, but I think it'll work out. At this point, I've removed all coding agents from my host - and that's nice.
It's tangential to the sandboxing topic, really. I started the first post with a broader intent in mind and then elaborated on the sandboxing setup I'm working on. For AI-assisted coding, though, it's nice because Haskell provides a lot of feedback earlier in the development process compared to lots of other languages. It tends to work once it compiles (obviously not all the time).
join the communityorbrowse more notes