Someone needs to say it: Ralph Wiggum Doesn't Work(twitter.com)
2 pointsby pedronauck213 hours ago3 comments
  • pedronauck213 hours ago
    I wrote a post about the “Ralph Wiggum” / bash-loop pattern (while :; do …; done) and why it often falls apart when you aim it at structured work (PRDs, specs, phased deliverables). It’s great for open-ended cleanup/refactor tasks, but for step-by-step workflows you run into predictable failure modes: no verification gates, weak recovery, context pollution across steps, and expensive runaway loops.

    The core argument: the fix isn’t “bigger context,” it’s isolating steps and passing explicit state/artifacts between them, with verification + guardrails.

    • PaulHoule3 hours ago
      What's hilarious about language like:

         And it's costing them hundreds of dollars per workflow — not because the idea is bad, but because the workflow shape is.
      Is that the stance that's been programmed into ChatGPT 5.2 is infectious, the more you talk with it the more you wind up talking that way. I love the conversations it has about bodily sensations and breathwork and about having a "stance" coming from something that never one felt anything or drew a breath!
  • chrisjj3 hours ago
    > Ralph Wiggum is phenomenal for open-ended, exploratory work:

    > “Fix all the lint errors in this codebase”

    > ...

    > These tasks have no defined endpoint.

    "Fix all the lint errors" sure looks like one.

  • coldtea3 hours ago
    AI slop article