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

Software is made between commits

zed.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 230 posts

Re: Software is made between commits

#101

Post by hinkley »

aeonik wrote: post #99
hinkley wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody needs to know quite how messy the process of making the sausage is though. There are steps that provide information, even about how the bugs got in there. But not every thought needs to be expressed.

Disagree. This how people best learn from each other. It's also nice to audit your own thought process objectively. It makes one vulnerable though, that's for sure. Psychologically I mean.

Whether you realize it or not, you're insisting all the neurodivergent people at your job unmask themselves, and fuck that noise.

Re: Software is made between commits

#102

Post by gib444 »

Next up: a kit to wire up a developer's brain activity direct to the AI companies, so not a single part of their thought process remains in control of the developer, in order to feed the models. You must brainsignalmaxx 8 hours a day or be fired.

Your boss will also demand that you narrate your thought process 8 hours a day. Speakmaxxing will be required to keep your job. There will be a "silence" wall of shame for the non-compliers.

Re: Software is made between commits

#103

Post by selicos »

jcgrillo wrote: post #51
tomjakubowski wrote: post #20

I really don't like this. The code I write between commits is my thinking. I think by writing some code out, deleting it, writing again. The code I write that's shipped in commits is written for others to understand, and is a product of that writing for thinking process. I don't want my thoughts to be serialized, version controlled and publicly accessible. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4

Fully agree, very icky surveillance vibes. In particular: > DeltaDB breaks your work into a stream of fine-grained deltas. Where Git captures a snapshot at each commit, DeltaDB captures every operation in between and gives each one a stable identity. I was curious about giving Zed a try, now that it has an emacs keymap. Not anymore. This is such a horribly invasive feature, I absolutely do not want my colleagues revi…

This seems like a perfect audit feature to flip back and train a model. Or ensure your human worker is working during business hours.

Re: Software is made between commits

#104

Post by steveklabnik »

subygan wrote: post #92
tomjakubowski wrote: post #20

I really don't like this. The code I write between commits is my thinking. I think by writing some code out, deleting it, writing again. The code I write that's shipped in commits is written for others to understand, and is a product of that writing for thinking process. I don't want my thoughts to be serialized, version controlled and publicly accessible. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4

This was my problem with JJ as well. I don't want everything in between to be versioned. I'm not even sure, every intermediary state between a commit is relevant or useful. but feels like, I'm in the minority.

To be clear, while jj does that, it's entirely local on your machine, and not shared.

Re: Software is made between commits

#105

Post by selicos »

sdesol wrote: post #59
fridder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The collaboration part I’m skeptical of but I get it, as it sounds like a feature made for business consumers

This sounds like it is more aligned with what I have created which is "We need to capture your conversations with AI". If you look at https://github.com/gitsense/gsc-cli/blob/main/internal/cli/r... you can see that every file has a code block header with a UUID and the AI that was attributed to it. With the UUID, I can tell exactly how the code came about. What they are working on will be more useful for AI code prov…

Audit purposes for sure. How was this code/concept generated, what were the prompts/requirements, what thinking did the model complete, can this be replicated or repeated, etc.

A vendor conference I was at a few weeks ago focused heavily on this, for most of their Agentic workflow items. How can you show the AIs work, prove what it did was within guidelines, then audit the process and result.

Like, if your system has an AI backed federated search for documents and you ask it a question about those documents, you need an audit trail of the ask, what documents were referenced, and what was returned to the user.

Then if wrong information was supplied that can be pinned down and explained in case of lawsuit or other need.

Re: Software is made between commits

#106

Post by rdedev »

hinkley wrote: post #97
InfinityByTen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my professors in undergrad said: the most dangerous mathematicians are the ones that begin the proof with "Consider a case ...". He said that these mathematicians are the ones who don't share anything about how they got the case and they end up projecting this sort of "magician aura". I don't know how accurate that assessment it, but I think it captures something that never sat well with me. In my life, I've n…

"So I was thinking about #####'s Law this morning, and I realized that #######'s Theorem might apply if we do this and ignore that. Then I went up a blind alley and stopped for coffee and realized I was overcomplicating it, we don't care about negative or imaginary solutions." They don't need to know I was brushing my teeth and thinking of bacon and an argument I had with my spouse right before I thought that though.…

The example I had was of Ramanujam. "It was revealed to me in a dream"

Re: Software is made between commits

#107

Post by overgard »

I'd have to see the implementation in the editor to really know if I'd want it or not, but my initial impression is that I don't think it's something I would use. I've worked on a couple of products with in-editor collaboration built in (not text editors, but, content creation tools). For the most part collaboration just wasn't something users wanted that much. The problem was that the in-editor collaboration was only really useful for things that were 100% on the web, it never caught on with the more file-centric workflows. It works in something like Google Docs because it's natural that your data is in the cloud there, but for something that lives on your filesystem it feels like it takes extra steps that most people aren't going to be willing to do (especially if they have to use an editor different from their normal one)

Re: Software is made between commits

#109

Post by selicos »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #21
localhoster wrote: post #7

Sad to see zed going the same route everybody is screaming them not to. Altough, I never expected otherwise.

What route is that, and why is everyone screaming at them, for someone out of the loop?

It sounds like they ship a fairly minimal and efficient set of tools or text editor. This would be unwanted bloat by those choosing them for those advantages.

Re: Software is made between commits

#110

Post by narnarpapadaddy »

Aerolfos wrote: post #58
dematz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is a fork of zed against ai: https://gram-editor.com/ I am happy about even though I've never tried gram, because if zed goes to shit there will be an alternative, which hopefully pressures zed to stay sane

From their mission statement: > I also object to making myself and my work depend on paying a subscription fee to anyone. I don't want an outage at Anthropic to affect my ability to do my work. I think it is a grave mistake to build anything on such shaky foundations as the sustainability and profit margins of the AI industry. Someone actually sensible, excellent.

That’s not the premise people are building on though.

Any particular model almost doesn’t matter at this point. Harnesses are built around them. OpenAI and Anthropic are basically interchangeable in an open-source harness like OpenCode; the switching cost is virtually zero. Local models are improving rapidly and are already “good enough” for many use cases already. The bet that LLMs will continue to exist as an algorithm is pretty solid.

Post reply on HN