What does "Write Yourself a Scheme in 48 Hours" produce? From OP I'm guessing it's something less than (73% of) R7RS.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Write_Yourself_a_Scheme_in_48_...

detractors of AI claim this stuff is in its training data so it could be a copy which is valid. The crazy thing is the fact that it can definitely build something that does not exist.

> I run into bugs all the time so it’s probably not ready for anyone other than me to use, but I’ve managed to go pretty deep (if not wide) in just a few days of work.

Having similar experience with my experimental code generator to Rust. Every time a yet another example does not work, Claude fixes it. However, I am curious whether it would converge to a bullet-proof solution, or I have to carefully read the code and come up with proper abstractions.

Quickly building "near production level"? Are we talking about this Matthew Phillips?

https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/build-with-ai/

What a happy coincidence!

Cool. I'm also working on a Scheme compiler for embedding. Bytecode VM as well as AOT compilation to Zig. 100% written by Claude Opus under my supervision and guidance. I've given it an extensive set of tests and benchmarks (r5rs and r7rs) which helps A LOT. I currently use it embedded in a modal prose editor, mostly running integration tests for now.

https://codeberg.org/sicher/zscheme

This is cool, I got Codex to vibe code a Forth compiler for the NES and it worked fine, but I have to say that it is decidedly not fun.

Instead of figuring out how to solve every bug and becoming intimately familiar with with the code, I just delegate all the work to virtual interns and I sit and wait.

I decided to write my own Forth compiler without AI assistance as a result. Side projects should be fun and for learning.

Not judging people who use these tools, I use them too, but i just have been using them less for anything I am doing for fun.