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

Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

pypi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 122 posts

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#11

Post by bravetraveler »

TheChaplain wrote: post #8

IMHO there is little point of these conversion projects. It screams of "look at me, see what I made" and when the attention goes down a little nothing was ever pushed to the repo ever again. Perhaps I am out of touch, but a project with author/s that have passion for every line, function and purpose, feels more real and worth my trust to spend time using it.

I'd go even further: 'look at me, see what was paid for.'

This isn't much different than the 'builder brained' coworker who is obsessed with creating technical debt, not owning it. Throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, passing it off as sage wisdom.

It'd be interesting to see the math behind offsetting the GPU crunching with more power efficient linting. Assuming every person or CI job switched (and the model stays offline), how many years are we looking at?

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#12

Post by dgellow »

bravetraveler wrote: post #11
TheChaplain wrote: post #8

IMHO there is little point of these conversion projects. It screams of "look at me, see what I made" and when the attention goes down a little nothing was ever pushed to the repo ever again. Perhaps I am out of touch, but a project with author/s that have passion for every line, function and purpose, feels more real and worth my trust to spend time using it.

I'd go even further: 'look at me, see what was paid for.' This isn't much different than the 'builder brained' coworker who is obsessed with creating technical debt, not owning it. Throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, passing it off as sage wisdom. It'd be interesting to see the math behind offsetting the GPU crunching with more power efficient linting. Assuming every person or CI job switched (and the m…

In this case, it’s maybe more “I can access that luxurious model you all pleb are banned from using”

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#14

Post by tuna74 »

TheChaplain wrote: post #8

IMHO there is little point of these conversion projects. It screams of "look at me, see what I made" and when the attention goes down a little nothing was ever pushed to the repo ever again. Perhaps I am out of touch, but a project with author/s that have passion for every line, function and purpose, feels more real and worth my trust to spend time using it.

Using less electricity or time for the same result seems a pretty good point.

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#15

Post by voidUpdate »

Do you generally pylint an entire codebase at once though? Why not just the file you are actually working on? Based on the homeassistant results (10.3 hours to lint 17.5k files), it only takes about 2 seconds to pylint a file, which doesn't really feel like enough of a wait to need an entirely new linter

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#16

Post by [deleted] »

tuna74 wrote: post #14
TheChaplain wrote: post #8

IMHO there is little point of these conversion projects. It screams of "look at me, see what I made" and when the attention goes down a little nothing was ever pushed to the repo ever again. Perhaps I am out of touch, but a project with author/s that have passion for every line, function and purpose, feels more real and worth my trust to spend time using it.

Using less electricity or time for the same result seems a pretty good point.

[deleted]

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#17

Post by kypro »

ma2kx wrote: post #3

> A Rust reimplementation of pylint that produces byte-for-byte identical output — 15–2300× faster (median ~85×). > prylint is not "inspired by" pylint. [...] Where pylint has bugs, prylint reproduces them. Where pylint crashes, prylint reports the same crash message. This looks very strange to me. There's no paper or explanation as to why the output should be identical to the real Pylint. Looking at GitHub, all the…

That caught me off guard too – is that the intention, or the actual verifiable outcome?

Potentially if there are failing tests of known bugs in pylint then Fable could have tried to reproduce those bugs in prylint, but that doesn't necessarily mean identical behaviour – at best only identical test-time behaviour.

Seems the vibe coder likely wanted it to "produce byte-for-byte identical output", but realistically there's no way to actually guarantee that as the description suggests.

It's one thing to burn tokens on a project like this and share it to see if there's any interest, but quite another to make exaggerated claims about its portability.

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#18

Post by short_sells_poo »

Hamuko wrote: post #5

So basically `ruff check --select=PL` but worse in every single way, maintained by a system that's not even available anymore? It even uses Ruff's code under the surface.

> It even uses Ruff's code under the surface.

This is the modus operandi for a lot of vibe coded stuff. Absorb the code of entire projects wholesale and then repackage it as something new.

Some of them have the decency to at least give credits to the original.

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#19

Post by whereistejas »

TheChaplain wrote: post #8

IMHO there is little point of these conversion projects. It screams of "look at me, see what I made" and when the attention goes down a little nothing was ever pushed to the repo ever again. Perhaps I am out of touch, but a project with author/s that have passion for every line, function and purpose, feels more real and worth my trust to spend time using it.

While I agree with your point in general, rewriting a big widely used project in a stricter language is always a good thing. It improves the dev-ex of people contributing to these projects and more importantly helps people seperate logic into silos. Python is inherently limited in which kinds of abstraction it can express.

Re: Fable Converted Pylint to Rust

#20

Post by danpalmer »

tuna74 wrote: post #14
TheChaplain wrote: post #8

IMHO there is little point of these conversion projects. It screams of "look at me, see what I made" and when the attention goes down a little nothing was ever pushed to the repo ever again. Perhaps I am out of touch, but a project with author/s that have passion for every line, function and purpose, feels more real and worth my trust to spend time using it.

Using less electricity or time for the same result seems a pretty good point.

Most software is not a single finished artifact though, it's a community, a process, knowledge, documentation, and mindshare. This has none of those, so by default it'll die as a project immediately.

To gain any of those is a much bigger problem: is the code structured well enough to get contributors over? Do the contributors know Rust? What about all the open bug reports? What about the edge cases that aren't triggered by the benchmarked projects, how do you even find them?

Post reply on HN