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

GitHub-Next

githubnext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: GitHub-Next

#111

Post by ShamelessC »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #82
tpmoney wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because scraping a public website is different from breaking into adobes private source control servers?

there is public DB of windows code out there, if "cant" is the word then let users submit the injest code and let it train on it. if "wont" is the word then who gave them the permission?

The reason is that GitHub, being GitHub, has a lot of search indices and existing analytics on the code that is hosted on GitHub.

It was easier, at least - but probably gives some nice guarantees about the statistics of "public" code, with the norms and conventions you're "used to", because you're used to the internet's coding norms.

Company code can be pretty bad, even at Microsoft, often riddled with hyper-verbose variable names and strange design patterns.

Re: GitHub-Next

#112

Post by jcparkyn »

bern4444 wrote: post #84

Regarding visualization of codebases, something I've wanted for a long time is a graph of function calls across an entire project. I want to know all the callers and callees of every function. This shouldn't be too hard, we already have find references via LSP. Turning this into a graph would make it significantly easier to manage the entry and exit points of a code base and inform architecture decisions, refactors,…

This isn't really what you're asking for, but since no-one else has mentioned it, the call hierarchy feature built into most IDEs gets about 50% of the way there. The obvious limitations are that this usually only works for one function at a time, and shows a tree not a graph.

Re: GitHub-Next

#113

Post by maleldil »

Nanana909 wrote: post #40
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things were fair use, what Microsoft is doing is copyright violation pure and simple.

If Copilot reads copyrighted code to learn, and it‘s copyright violation… Does the same apply to a human? Do we now define copyright violation differently for computers? I don‘t know the perfect answer here. But I‘m not so sure we should have standards that change depending on if a program is doing it or a human is doing it. Perhaps a bad standard to begin with. I do tend to learn towards thinking „company uses publi…

Framing this as learning is unhelpful. Copilot isn't just learning. It can reproduce code it saw during training verbatim. It will even reproduce the GPLv3 licence itself. If you copy-paste code from a GPLv3-licenced sourced without attribution, it's a copyright violation. Why should it be different for Copilot?

EDIT: After more reading on the subject, I'm willing to accept that copyright infringement is unlikely here. This link [1] was the one I found most convincing.

However, I would still shift the goalposts and look at this ethically, and I still think it's wrong that Microsoft is profiting from code with licences like GPLv3. This is a whole other topic, though.

[1] https://www.technollama.co.uk/is-githubs-copilot-potentially...

Re: GitHub-Next

#114

Post by chrismorgan »

Aeolun wrote: post #55
chrismorgan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements. (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax, which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only needing some root element.) As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is ma…

> It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. That’s like calling a cheese sandwich without any cheese a cheese sandwich.

If you omit writing and in HTML syntax, there will still be a head tag in the parsed result.

(This is different from XML syntax, where omitting the start and end tags means omitting the element as a whole so that there will be no head tag in the parsed result.)

Re: GitHub-Next

#115

Post by cush »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #47
cush wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they add this in the last 40 mins? I'm seeing a pretty good description: " GitHub Next investigates the future of software development. We explore things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and technologies that will change our craft. New approaches to building healthy, productive software engineering teams. "

That explains what it does (somewhat vaguely), but not what Github Next is and who makes it up. Is it a team at GitHub that employees work on full time? It it some kind of initiative where GitHub employees spend part of their time working on it? Is it a community effort? Am I able to join in?

I don't have such high expectations for websites. It's just a showcase, and it really looks like a showcase site, so the description seemed good enough

Re: GitHub-Next

#116

Post by jayroh »

idan wrote: post #50
jayroh wrote: post #16

If anyone on the team at GitHub who built this site sees this -- Heads up, that page has no ` ` tag so the browser tab is `githubnext.com/`. That is a _VERY_ minor nit, but still an SEO ding (you're github, that doesn't matter much), and a rough edge that could be buffed out. Bonus points for adding a favicon too. :)

Hey! Thanks for the report, we're on it :D

No problem! :)

Glad to help

Re: GitHub-Next

#118

Post by IshKebab »

tomschlick wrote: post #96
IshKebab wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens all the time because setting up an entirely new domain yourself is way less work than asking the internal IT team to set up a subdomain for you. If the GitHub IT team is reading this then yes, that means you failed.

I'd imagine it's less about setup complexity and more about reducing the attack surface of the main domain where any number of mistakes on the subdomain could expose a vulnerability for the main domain as well.

Not in my experience. It's about avoiding bureaucracy.

Re: GitHub-Next

#119

Post by blowski »

kyleee wrote: post #110
buscoquadnary wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a sexy name by some middle manager somewhere, or some executive3 that got a good idea while taking a morning duce, to come up with an exciting new project that will juice their resume and hopefully get them promoted before it comes to the front that they do nothing and their objectives are entirely fluff. It's an old trick first called out in The Dilbert Principle that you get promoted by being associated with s…

great job though, if you can get it

Meh. I'd much rather have a job where I get the feeling of finishing something on an almost daily basis.
Post reply on HN