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

Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 952 posts

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#801

Post by nmz »

mexicocitinluez wrote: post #781
budududuroiu wrote: post #687

Unsure if this post is being astroturfed or not, but seeing HackerNews root for Microsoft and boo communities that embrace alternatives feels very, anti-hacker in mentality. Sad state of affairs

I'm not rooting for Microsoft, but comments like this: > with the remaining rookies eager to inflict some kind of bloated, buggy JavaScript framework on us in the name of progress. and > More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys are juvenile.

While juvenile, it is a fair point that github and all websites that ditch everything for javascript get less snappy to use.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#802

Post by strix_varius »

stocksinsmocks wrote: post #734
strix_varius wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. For me, the hard part has been figuring out the distinction with junior engineers... Is this poorly thought out, inefficient solution that is 3x as long as necessary due to AI, or inexperience?

Not defending him, but we were already doing this with electron apps, frameworks, libraries, and scripting languages. The only meaningful cost in most software development is labor and that’s what makes sense to optimize. I’d rather have good software, but I’ll take badly made software for free over great software that costs more than the value of the problem solved. These discussions are always about tactics and nev…

> I’ll take badly made software for free

No, not if I have to maintain it.

Code is liability. LLM written PRs often bring net negative value: they make the whole system larger, more brittle, and less integrated. They come at the cost of end user quality and maintainer velocity.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#803

Post by hobofan »

miki123211 wrote: post #492
bayesnet wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It greatly saddens me to see how little concern there is for accessibility for dev tooling. It says something about our industry that accessibility is often viewed as a “luxury” feature that can be dealt with once you’ve reached some level of success or revenue or whatever. I’m hopeful AI tools can improve qol for those who require screen readers and similar tools but have a sinking feeling that it will only transfer…

> It greatly saddens me to see how little concern there is for accessibility for dev tooling. This really depends on company size, and the company in question. Everything Microsoft does in this space is excellent, VS Code almost feels like an app specifically designed for the blind at times. Other large companies aren't as good, but their products are usually somewhat usable. Startups are a mixed bag, Zed is notoriou…

> This really depends on company size

It mainly depends on whether the company is trying to sell to governments that have accessibility requirements anchored into their procurement process requirements. Of course there is some causality between company size and ability to service government contracts.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#804

Post by gloosx »

rootlocus wrote: post #716
dreamcompiler wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My old rule about the difference between coding and software engineering: For coding, "it seems to work for me" is good enough. For software engineering, it's not. My new rule: For coding, you can use AI to write your code. For software engineering, you can't.

I feel like the distinction is equivalent to LLMs can make mistakes. Humans can't. Humans can and do make mistakes all the time. LLMs can automate most of the boring stuff, including unit tests with 100% coverage. They can cover edge cases you ask them to and they can even come up with edge cases you may not have thought about. This leaves you to do the review. I think think the underlying problem people have is they…

If unit tests are boring chores for you, or 100% coverage is somehow a goal in itself, then your understanding of quality software development is quite lacking overall. Tests are specifications: they define behavior, set boundaries, and keep the inevitable growth of complexity under control. Good tests are what keep a competent developer sane. You cannot build quality software without starting from tests. So if tests are boring you, the problem is your approach to engineering. Mature developers dont get bored chasing 100% coverage – they focus on meaningful tests that actually describe how the program is supposed to work.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#805

Post by strix_varius »

manwe150 wrote: post #714
strix_varius wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. For me, the hard part has been figuring out the distinction with junior engineers... Is this poorly thought out, inefficient solution that is 3x as long as necessary due to AI, or inexperience?

Does it matter? Either way seems to just reflect badly on the junior, who needs to improve their self-review skills and knowledge

It does matter, because it's a worthwhile investment of my time to deeply review, understand, and provide feedback for the work of a junior engineer on my team. That human being can learn and grow.

It is not a worthwhile use of my time to similarly "coach" LLM slop.

The classic challenge with junior engineers is that helping them ship something is often more work than just doing it yourself. I'm willing to do that extra work for a human.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#806

Post by hobofan »

rererereferred wrote: post #667
coolgoose wrote: post #402

I am by no means an Ai fanboy, but not using translation tools feels odd?

I thought the same but from another perspective, it's better to explain things in a language you dominate and let others translate it to theirs, which might be a good or bad translation; than translate it yourself to a language you don't dominate and the others always get a bad translation. At least in the first case new people can come with better translations. This is all assuming translation tools always translate…

One doesn't exclude the other. You can use machine translation and clearly marking it as such, and then let people override them if there is the necessary contribution activity.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#807

Post by kps »

MarkMarine wrote: post #78
woodruffw wrote: post #34

I don’t have strong opinions about Zig or Codeberg, but I find the self-described status of the latter’s infrastructure concerning[1]: they’re seemingly running faulty hardware in production with limited redundancy, and are actively soliciting more hardware of unknown quality/reliability/provenance from their community. This is cool for a hobbyist project, but it doesn’t scream “stable platform for a post-GitHub worl…

Reading the infra part of the post made me smile, I spent part of my week putting workloads on spot but this is the real spot market. Chaos monkey is running in prod if you are ready for it or not. Jokes aside, the technical depth it takes to make that one server run is impressive. That makes me more interested in codeberg, not less, though I’m going to keep my own mirror of the zig repo until they get some better ha…

> we hope to use direct solar power to operate CI/CD nodes only during sunshine hours

Status: CI down due to cloud issues.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#808

Post by bfkwlfkjf »

the__alchemist wrote: post #654
bitbasher wrote: post #2

I'm happy to see the move. Codeberg is probably a more stable/long-term solution than SourceHut as the founder is slightly unhinged (but love what he has built). Honestly, either would have been great choices. More opensource projects should move off GitHub. I moved off it myself.

I am getting fatigued by all of these. I am learning about a new one each time. We have - GitHub - BinCode - GitLab - SourceHut - CodeBerg They all seem to do roughly the same things, but with a different web UI. Competition is great! Especially in response to a big corp that has market share. But... there was value in the centralization of GH.

> They all seem to do roughly the same things

Codeberg (Forgejo) is Free software, GitHub isn't. Not everything is about the software features.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#809

Post by debugnik »

rixed wrote: post #779
debugnik wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume he's well meaning because I've been seeing his posts for a few months already in the OCaml forums before this pattern of his started, but he's suddenly acting irrational and doubling down. There's no way I can put that nicely, plus he's since deleted his strongest reactions so you can't grasp it fully either. This is not my first interaction with him outside HN, I already talked to him privately when this wa…

I've been following as well. As much as i disagree with it, I appreciate that he has the audacity to propose this "all in" attitude. I'm a bit worried by the amount of anger that border doxing at times. I'd like this community to behave better.

I don't think doxing means what you think it means but whatever. I also expected more of him than to spam ads, waste the time of maintainers and mods on multiple communities, and reply passive-aggressively to anyone asking him to tone it down.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#810

Post by bfkwlfkjf »

dpatterbee wrote: post #81
dsissitka wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the incident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41837782 https://dmpwn.info/

I'm confused, the incident is that he wrote a document detailing repeated bad behaviour from a well known community figure? And this is a bad thing? And that second link is really grasping at straws lol

> the incident is that he wrote a document detailing repeated bad behaviour from a well known community figure? And this is a bad thing?

He collected all Stallman statements about Epstein and related subjects (this is perfectly ok) and then wrote his own summaries which completely misrepresent the things which were actually said. So what happened was that a lot of people just skimmed the summaries and concluded that Stallman molests children, or says that it's ok to do so etc etc.

If fact I have taken to link the Stallman report and add "don't read the summaries, read only the things that Stallman actually said". This only works if I believe the person is in good faith, of course. I would suggest the same to you.

Post reply on HN