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

91–100 of 116 posts

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

#91

Post by ziznznzb »

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…

You’ve gotta read the code. It doesn’t matter how it got there but if you don’t fully understand it (which implies reading it) don’t get mad when you try to push slop on people. It’s the equivalent of asking an LLM to write an email for somebody else to read that you didn’t read yourself. It’s basic human trust - of course people get annoyed with you. You’re untrustworthy.

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

#93

Post by selridge »

g947o wrote: post #63
red_hare wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is OP using Claude relevant?

Because the entire README doesn't even mention it, and it is an important factor in deciding whether it is ready for production use. I, for one, am definitely not going to use this project for anything serious unless I have thoroughly reviewed the code myself. Prototyping is fine.

[flagged]

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

#94

Post by selridge »

gritzko wrote: post #56
atonse wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the specificity of parent's "evil maids" phrase but the concept of an "Evil maid" is used in security scenarios. A maid tends to be an example of a person who's mostly a stranger, but is given unmonitored access to your most private spaces for prolonged periods of time. So they theoretically become a good vector for a malicious actor to say "hey I'll give you $$ if you just plug in this USB drive in…

"Evil maids" (example): I put my laptop into a safe, seal the safe, seal the room, go to breakfast. On return, I see there was cleaning (not the usual time, I know the hotel), the cleaner looks strangely confused, the seal on the safe is detached (that is often done by applying ice; adhesive hardens, seal goes off). This level of paranoia was not my norm. Had to learn these tricks cause problems happened (repeatedly)…

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

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

#95

Post by qsera »

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’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this?

Imagine a machine that can calculate using logic circuits and one that uses a lookup table.

LLMs right now is the latter (please don't take literally, It is just an example). You can argue that the look up table is so huge that it works most of the time.

But I (and probably the parent commenter) need it to be the former. And that answers your question.

So it does not matter how huge the lookup table will grow in the future so that it will work more often, it is still a lookup table.

So people are divided into two groups right now. One group that goes by appearance, and one that goes by what the thing actually is fundamentally, despite the appearances.

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

#96

Post by nickysielicki »

qsera wrote: post #95
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…

>I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Imagine a machine that can calculate using logic circuits and one that uses a lookup table. LLMs right now is the latter (please don't take literally, It is just an example). You can argue that the look up table is so huge that it works most of the time. But I (and probably the parent commenter) need it to be the former. And that…

But logic circuits are look up tables.

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

#97

Post by nickysielicki »

selridge wrote: post #89
ks2048 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should say what models/tools they used in even show the prompts.

"show the prompts" What would the prompt for this look like?

never mind the fact that the model is constantly reseeding itself against the files it’s reading from your working directory, so the prompts are useless on their own.

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

#98

Post by qsera »

nickysielicki wrote: post #96
qsera wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Imagine a machine that can calculate using logic circuits and one that uses a lookup table. LLMs right now is the latter (please don't take literally, It is just an example). You can argue that the look up table is so huge that it works most of the time. But I (and probably the parent commenter) need it to be the former. And that…

But logic circuits are look up tables.

Every computation/function can be a look up table!

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

#99

Post by nickysielicki »

qsera wrote: post #98
nickysielicki wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But logic circuits are look up tables.

Every computation/function can be a look up table!

right, so why are you asking me to imagine one machine that can calculate using logic circuits and another that can calculate using a lookup table when we’re in agreement that they’re the same thing?

I reject the premise of your analogy.

Post reply on HN