✧✦Catherine✦✧2d ago

i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original

the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%

edit: this got popular without me really intending to, so here's why i'm reading research: i want a semantic style transfer tool that can automatically format a patch "the same as the rest of the file / rest of codebase is formatted" without the rigidity involved in black or rustfmt that i find so hostile to my workflow that i refuse to use them. obviously, i want a tool that generates semantically equivalent code 100.0% of time (ignoring source locations or reading from __file__)

Show thread✧✦Catherine✦✧2d ago
this isn't satire, this is real research published by IEEE/ACM
Show threaddisorderlyf2d ago

@whitequark So let me get this straight, IEEE thinks you should count it as a win if rewriting your code by vibing it has less than 15% better odds than a literal coinflip of reproducibility?

edited for clarity and to fix a typo

Show threadUrix Turing2d ago
@disorderlyf @whitequark IEEE and ACM don't do the research nor they think you to do things, they are publishers that own journals and conferences where researchers publish their work
Show threaddisorderlyf1d ago
@urixturing @whitequark I initially thought IEEE was like a standards body specifically for networking, like a hardware W3C. Regardless of who did the research, I thought this was their conclusion. It sounds like I was wrong on both parts
Show threadUrix Turing1d ago
@disorderlyf @whitequark that would be the IETF, who publishes the RFCs (networking standards like email or HTTP)
Show threadUrix Turing
@disorderlyf @whitequark but honestly I understand why it's very confusing
Mar 24 at 4:54pmWeb