Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#71

Post by ctmnt »

ctmnt wrote: post #64
gritzko wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Just saying, strange coincidence 2. How can we compare Claude's output in a different language? 3. Detecting break-ins and handling evil-maids: unless the trick is already known on the internets, I do not disclose. Odds are not in my favor. 4. Maybe worth, maybe not. I have my adaptations. Trying to make it not worthy of stealing, in fact.

Based on this and your other comments, including the one that’s no longer visible: Please phone a friend. Or find a professional to talk to. I say that with nothing but compassion.

For the people who are downvoting me: I’m being totally sincere. This is not an ad hominem attack. You didn’t see his other comment, it was genuinely concerning.

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#72

Post by nickysielicki »

acedTrex wrote: post #69
nickysielicki wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Are you basically of the opinion that it’s not good enough today, never will be good enough in the future, and we should just wind back the clock 3 years and pretend these tools don’t exist? It feels to me like a lot of this is dogma. If the code is broken or needs more testing, that can be solved. But it’s orthogonal: the LLM can…

This might be true, but we can continue to try and require the communities we have been part of for years to act a certain way regarding disclosures. If the community majority changes it mind then so be it. But the fight will continue for quite some time until that is decided.

There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction.

I’m tempted to just start putting co-authored-by: Claude in every commit I make, even the ones that I write by hand, just to intentionally alienate people like you.

The best guardrails are linters, autoformatters, type checkers, static analyzers, fuzzers, pre-commit rules, unit tests and coverage requirements, microbenchmarks, etc. If you genuinely care about open source code quality, you should be investing in improving these tools and deploying them in the projects you rely on. If the LLMs are truly writing bad or broken code, it will show up here clearly.

But if you can’t rephrase your criticism of a patch in terms of things flagged by tools like those, and you’re not claiming there’s something architecturally wrong with the way it was designed, you don’t have a criticism at all. You’re just whining.

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#73

Post by mojifwisi »

kopirgan wrote: post #70

Can someone please explain what's the connection between this and LSP? For example in Helix can one use this instead of various language servers?

Tree-sitter is merely a tool for generating an AST for a given language. LSPs on the other hand have way more capabilities (formatting, diagnostics, project-wise go to definition, inlay hints, documentation on hover, etc.) as you can see in its specification.[0] They can't really replace one another.

[0]: https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifi...

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#74

Post by lenkite »

nickysielicki wrote: post #68
gritzko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK for prototyping. Not OK for prod use if noone actually read it line by line.

I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Are you basically of the opinion that it’s not good enough today, never will be good enough in the future, and we should just wind back the clock 3 years and pretend these tools don’t exist? It feels to me like a lot of this is dogma. If the code is broken or needs more testing, that can be solved. But it’s orthogonal: the LLM can…

I see this as the same argument as saying GMO label not needed, no need to mention artificial flavours in food, etc.

I mean this in the nicest way possible: the world is just going to insist that AI generated output is marked clearly as AI produced output.

Not sure whether giving a LICENSE even makes sense.

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#76

Post by [deleted] »

ctmnt wrote: post #71
ctmnt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this and your other comments, including the one that’s no longer visible: Please phone a friend. Or find a professional to talk to. I say that with nothing but compassion.

For the people who are downvoting me: I’m being totally sincere. This is not an ad hominem attack. You didn’t see his other comment, it was genuinely concerning.

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#77

Post by gritzko »

nickysielicki wrote: post #68
gritzko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK for prototyping. Not OK for prod use if noone actually read it line by line.

I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Are you basically of the opinion that it’s not good enough today, never will be good enough in the future, and we should just wind back the clock 3 years and pretend these tools don’t exist? It feels to me like a lot of this is dogma. If the code is broken or needs more testing, that can be solved. But it’s orthogonal: the LLM can…

I tried to control LLM output quality by different means, including fuzzing. Had several cases when LLM "cheated" on that too. So, I have my own shades and grades of being sure the code is not BS.

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#78

Post by acedTrex »

nickysielicki wrote: post #72
acedTrex wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be true, but we can continue to try and require the communities we have been part of for years to act a certain way regarding disclosures. If the community majority changes it mind then so be it. But the fight will continue for quite some time until that is decided.

There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction. I’m tempted to just start putting co-authored-by: Claude in every commit I make, even the ones that I write by hand, just to intentionally alienate people like you. The best guardrails are linters, autoformatters, type checkers, static analyzers, fuzzers, pre-commit rules, unit tests a…

> There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction.

It's always been a bit splintered, but it was generally composed of 95%+ of people that know how to program. That is no longer the case in any sense.

> I’m tempted to just start putting co-authored-by: Claude in every commit I make, even the ones that I write by hand, just to intentionally alienate people like you.

I mean it sounds like you are already using claude for everything so this is probably a bit of a noop lol.

> But if you can’t rephrase your criticism of a patch in terms of things flagged by tools like those, and you’re not claiming there’s something architecturally wrong with the way it was designed, you don’t have a criticism at all. You’re just whining.

No, because doing that requires MORE rigor and work than what an LLM driven project had put into it. That difference in effort/work is not tenable, its shallow work being shown, its shallow criticisms thrown at it.

All sense of depth and integrity is gone and killed.

Re: Show HN: I ported Tree-sitter to Go

#80

Post by [deleted] »

ctmnt wrote: post #71
ctmnt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this and your other comments, including the one that’s no longer visible: Please phone a friend. Or find a professional to talk to. I say that with nothing but compassion.

For the people who are downvoting me: I’m being totally sincere. This is not an ad hominem attack. You didn’t see his other comment, it was genuinely concerning.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN