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

Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

entire.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 625 posts

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#471

Post by Aldipower »

loveparade wrote: post #447
chenmx wrote: post #393

[flagged]

I don't think your Github example is accurate. The vast majority of developers started using git after Github became a thing. They may have used svn or another type of collaboration system before, but not git. And the main reason they started using git is because Github was such massive value on top of git, not because git was so amazing.

My memories are different. Git became amazing on it's own and was a big advantage over SVN. GitHub was "a open source" thing in the beginning. No company here had the idea to host proprietary closed source code on another platform they do not have control over. This eventually became a thing later though and the mindset shifted.

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#473

Post by hansmayer »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #460
hansmayer wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems at this point, everyone and their mother, i.e. "We", are building the "tools" for which "we" mostly hope that the VC money will materialise. Use-cases are not important - if OpenAI can essentially work with Monopolly money, whey can´t "we" do it too?

> if OpenAI can essentially work with Monopolly money, whey can´t "we" do it too? The answer is, in case anyone wonders: because OpenAI is providing a general purpose tool that has potential to subsume most of the software industry; "We" are merely setting up toll gates around what will ultimately become a bunch of tools for LLM, and trying to pass it off as a "product".

For the huge amounts of capital already burnt, and another 1T in CapEX RPO being announced last few weeks and months, isnt that too many of "potentially" and "ultimately" unspecific qualifiers you are throwing around here? Reminds a lot of Sam Altmans classic lines of unspecific statements like "Codex is so good" or "I can only imagine how good it will get" by the end of 202x (insert year of the decade according to your own preference). After 10+ years of OpenAI and 4+ years of ChatGPT, why is the potential not materialising ?

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#475

Post by FranklinJabar »

loveparade wrote: post #447
chenmx wrote: post #393

[flagged]

I don't think your Github example is accurate. The vast majority of developers started using git after Github became a thing. They may have used svn or another type of collaboration system before, but not git. And the main reason they started using git is because Github was such massive value on top of git, not because git was so amazing.

> And the main reason they started using git is because Github was such massive value on top of git, not because git was so amazing.

Github has always been mediocre and forgettable outside of convenience that you might already have an account on the site. Svn was just shitty compared to git, and cvs was a crime against humanity.

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#476

Post by bayindirh »

FranklinJabar wrote: post #475
loveparade wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your Github example is accurate. The vast majority of developers started using git after Github became a thing. They may have used svn or another type of collaboration system before, but not git. And the main reason they started using git is because Github was such massive value on top of git, not because git was so amazing.

> And the main reason they started using git is because Github was such massive value on top of git, not because git was so amazing. Github has always been mediocre and forgettable outside of convenience that you might already have an account on the site. Svn was just shitty compared to git, and cvs was a crime against humanity.

> Github has always been mediocre and forgettable outside of convenience that you might already have an account on the site.

Completely agree. I moved out of GitHub for my personal projects and I don't miss it a single nanosecond.

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#477

Post by Galanwe »

chenmx wrote: post #393

[flagged]

The goal here is just to piggyback on the AI bandwagon, gather a lot of funding, create a product nobody understands but that sparks imagination, and sell it to FAANG.

Nobody cares if it makes sense, it just has to appear futuristic and avant-garde.

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#478

Post by CamouflagedKiwi »

prerok wrote: post #436
necovek wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think that's how it worked out for GitHub: I'd rather say that Git (as complex as it was to use) succeeded due to becoming the basis of GitHub (with simple, clean interface). At the time, there were multiple code hosting platforms like Sourceforge, FSF Savannah, Canonical's Launchpad.net, and most development was still done in SVN, with Git, Bazaar, Mercurial the upstart "distributed" VCSes with similar pene…

Yes, development was being done in SVN but it was a huge pain. Continuous communication was required with the server (history lookups took ages, changing a file required a checkout, etc.) and that was just horribly inefficient for distributed teams. Even within Europe, much more so when cross-continent. A DVCS was definitely required. And I would say git won out due to Linus inventing and then backing it, not because…

> changing a file required a checkout

SVN didn't need checkouts to edit that I recall? Perforce had that kind of model.

Re: Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents

#479

Post by vineyardmike »

grey-area wrote: post #466
jameslk wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for me, I have felt like the chat history in an agent is often times just as important and potentially even more important than the source code it generates. The code is merely the compiled result of my explanations of intent and goals. That is, the business logic and domain expertise is trapped in my brain, which isn't very scalable. Versioning and tracking the true source code, my thoughts, or even the tho…

Natural language is in fact a terrible way to express goals, it is imprecise, contradictory, subjective, full of redundancies and constantly changing. So possibly the worst format to record business rules and logic. This lesson has been learned over and over (see AppleScript) but it seems people need to keep learning it. We use simple programming languages composed of logic and maths not just to talk to the machine b…

Before LLMs (and still now) a human will often write a doc explaining the desired UX and user journeys that a product needs to support. That doc gets provided to engineers to build.

I agree - at least with the thesis - that the more we "encode" the fuzzy ideas (as translated by an engineer) into the codebase the better. This isn't the same thing as an "English compiler". It'd be closer to the git commit messages, understanding why a change was happening, and what product decisions and compromises were being designed against.

Post reply on HN