The approaches differ in where they draw the boundary. Namespaces use the same kernel but restrict visibility. Seccomp uses the same kernel but restricts the allowed syscall set. Projects like gVisor use a completely separate user-space kernel and make minimal host syscalls. MicroVMs provide a dedicated guest kernel and a hardware-enforced boundary. Finally, WebAssembly provides no kernel access at all, relying instead on explicit capability imports. Each step is a qualitatively different boundary, not just a stronger version of the same thing.
During development I encountered a caveat: Opus 4.5 can’t test or view a terminal output, especially one with unusual functional requirements. But despite being blind, it knew enough about the ratatui terminal framework to implement whatever UI changes I asked. There were a large number of UI bugs that likely were caused by Opus’s inability to create test cases, namely failures to account for scroll offsets resulting in incorrect click locations. As someone who spent 5 years as a black box Software QA Engineer who was unable to review the underlying code, this situation was my specialty. I put my QA skills to work by messing around with miditui, told Opus any errors with occasionally a screenshot, and it was able to fix them easily. I do not believe that these bugs are inherently due to LLM agents being better or worse than humans as humans are most definitely capable of making the same mistakes. Even though I myself am adept at finding the bugs and offering solutions, I don’t believe that I would inherently avoid causing similar bugs were I to code such an interactive app without AI assistance: QA brain is different from software engineering brain.
，推荐阅读Line官方版本下载获取更多信息
5 MacOS-like Linux distros that can rescue your old Intel Mac before support ends，推荐阅读51吃瓜获取更多信息
Initiated by bootc