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

Devtools must be open source

blog.exe.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 262 posts

Re: Devtools must be open source

#211

Post by QGQBGdeZREunxLe »

theamk wrote: post #15

> Set up a nightly cron job that executes the prompt: fetch upstream changes to the and rebase all local changes on top of upstream. Check that the software works as intended and replace the current version. This sounds like hell. You have unreliable actor redoing the software every night, and every day there is a chance you wake up and find your workflow broken. And no, "Check that the software works as intended" is…

Workflow being broken is the least of your worries. This is a security nightmare.

Re: Devtools must be open source

#213

Post by socalgal2 »

simonw wrote: post #3

One of the arguments for open source software for end-users has always been the freedom to examine and modify how that software works. The reality for most people - even expert programmers - has been that the freedom is more about being able to lean on other people to do that. Most people can't justify the time commitment needed to read and then modify the code for tools they use very often. I think LLMs have changed…

The path I see is I just ask for the functionality and AI builds it from scratch. No need for other people's software/libraries. I get it's not 100% there today but I do have that experience today with quite a few things.

I had one project, removed 14 dependencies just by asking the AI, "what would it take to remove dependency X". If it gives me basically "not too much work" then I tell it to remove it. Another I say "no libraries" and a few minutes later I had a mini game running in a mini native game engine, no libraries.

Like many I've also asked for small programs for various things. Last week I needed an image that a 4 months ago I would have made in photoshop. I just asked the AI "make me an image generator that given X inputs generates Y style" and 5 minutes later I had the generator in a webpage. I made a couple of minor tweaks that were faster by hand than prompting and had the image I wanted.

Re: Devtools must be open source

#214

Post by virtue3 »

socalgal2 wrote: post #213
simonw wrote: post #3

One of the arguments for open source software for end-users has always been the freedom to examine and modify how that software works. The reality for most people - even expert programmers - has been that the freedom is more about being able to lean on other people to do that. Most people can't justify the time commitment needed to read and then modify the code for tools they use very often. I think LLMs have changed…

The path I see is I just ask for the functionality and AI builds it from scratch. No need for other people's software/libraries. I get it's not 100% there today but I do have that experience today with quite a few things. I had one project, removed 14 dependencies just by asking the AI, "what would it take to remove dependency X". If it gives me basically "not too much work" then I tell it to remove it. Another I say…

have you considered the token inefficiency of what you're doing and that you're burning electricity to re-invent the wheel? I'm being a bit of a PITA here but if everyone does what you suggest the real world implications could be staggering.

Especially if we aren't committing code back into public places for LLMs to ingest and use.

I think from an efficiency standpoint it's almost always better to use something already battle tested and used in the open than rolling your own; regardless of leveraging LLMs or not.

Re: Devtools must be open source

#215

Post by saltmate »

simonw wrote: post #43
throwatdem12311 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you’re maintaining a stack of patches on top of the upstream until the end of time because the maintainers of the projects don’t want AI slop contributions, but now you depend on these changes for your own use so now you’ve created more work for yourself keeping your own fork up to date. I used AI to help me make a change to a library I use that ended up being a single line of code. The pull request was refused…

> Then you’re maintaining a stack of patches on top of the upstream until the end of time The linked article has an ambitious solution for that, in the form of this prompt to a coding agent harness: Set up a nightly cron job that executes the prompt: fetch upstream changes to the and rebase all local changes on top of upstream. Check that the software works as intended and replace the current version.

That's not a solution, just the necessary work. You still have a stack of patches you continuously have to (have) rebase(d) on upstream.

Re: Devtools must be open source

#216

Post by quintu5 »

"We need the source code." No, you want the source code. You want software someone else put their time, effort, and judgement into to be available for you to do whatever you'd like with it without any recompense. The sense of entitlement here is exhausting.

There are plenty of good reasons to choose an an open source tools and sure, the ability to personalize a tool at the source layer can be valuable enough in some instances to justify maintaining a fork manually or with an agent.

Asserting that dev tools must be open source to prioritize a paradigm where users roll the dice on adding features by one-shotting them with an agent and then burning tokens until the end of time to try to keep their forks compatible with upstream changes because plugin APIs are too restrictive doesn't pass muster.

Re: Devtools must be open source

#219

Post by smnplk »

virtue3 wrote: post #214
socalgal2 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The path I see is I just ask for the functionality and AI builds it from scratch. No need for other people's software/libraries. I get it's not 100% there today but I do have that experience today with quite a few things. I had one project, removed 14 dependencies just by asking the AI, "what would it take to remove dependency X". If it gives me basically "not too much work" then I tell it to remove it. Another I say…

have you considered the token inefficiency of what you're doing and that you're burning electricity to re-invent the wheel? I'm being a bit of a PITA here but if everyone does what you suggest the real world implications could be staggering. Especially if we aren't committing code back into public places for LLMs to ingest and use. I think from an efficiency standpoint it's almost always better to use something alrea…

That goes against "business model" of AI companies

Re: Devtools must be open source

#220

Post by robalni »

The article is about only one side of the solution: using AI to make it easier to work with code.

I think the other side of it is more important: making software simpler so that people can work with the code without having to use AI. That's what I try to do.

Post reply on HN