The entire point of a Wiki is that it can be collaboratively edited. This is static documentation, just with a Wikipedia-like UI.
Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.
Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
51–60 of 136 posts
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#52The entire point of a Wiki is that it can be collaboratively edited. This is static documentation, just with a Wikipedia-like UI.
Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.
I haven't used it enough to know if the two models can feasibly coexist. It may be better to just name it more accurately. There will be immense demand for an "automatic documentation generator". A wiki, not quite as much.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#53The entire point of a Wiki is that it can be collaboratively edited. This is static documentation, just with a Wikipedia-like UI.
Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.
Not the op but I don't think it's a request, it's semantics. You are calling wiki something that is really not a wiki, because wikis are editable.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#54The entire point of a Wiki is that it can be collaboratively edited. This is static documentation, just with a Wikipedia-like UI.
Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.
Regardless if it's a wiki or not right now, documentation that is wrong and cannot be fixed is worthless
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#55Super cool. When I think about accelerating teams while maintaining quality/culture, I think about the adage "if you want someone to do something, make it easy."
Maintaining great READMEs, documentation, onboarding docs, etc, is a lot of work. If Auto Wiki can make this substantially easier, then I think it could flip the calculus and make it much more common for teams to invest in these artifacts. Especially for the millions of internal, unloved repos that actually hold an org together.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#56Why does it request write access to my repos via gh auth?
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#57Cool concept. Right off the bat I see some big issues with the generated CPython documentation: > This provides a register-based virtual machine that executes the bytecode through simple opcodes. Python's VM is stack-based, not register-based. > The tiered interpreter in …/ceval.c can compile bytecode sequences into "traces" of optimized microoperations. No such functionality exists in CPython, as far as I know. > Th…
Great example of plausible but completely incorrect outputs from an AI model that would go largely undetected by a non-expert human.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#58Super cool. When I think about accelerating teams while maintaining quality/culture, I think about the adage "if you want someone to do something, make it easy." Maintaining great READMEs, documentation, onboarding docs, etc, is a lot of work. If Auto Wiki can make this substantially easier, then I think it could flip the calculus and make it much more common for teams to invest in these artifacts. Especially for the…
Thank you! We like the analogy of dehydrating knowledge that can be used (hydrated) later. Beyond even unloved repos, we'd even argue broader organizational knowledge that seems to have been lost to history like Roman Concrete or how to precisely build the Saturn V could potentially be "stored" using AI.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#59I'd quite like some more high level documentation for the Matrix JS SDK (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk). I've been looking at it for quite some time and still don't understand how timelines work.
Would bw fascinating if your tool could bring something useful to light.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#60Please do stevage/map-gl-utils
And turfjs/turf
Feedback: it's confusing that you're using the word wiki. I guess you mean, the style is similar to Wikipedia? But otherwise the concept of a wiki, an editable set of interconnected pages, seems irrelevant and just confusing here?