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

The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

blog.hrithwik.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

#92

Post by yreg »

jobigoud wrote: post #60
yreg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it better to have "simple" emails?

This is usually done to catch what they think has a high chance of being a user error, even if otherwise valid.

And what does this solve? A user mistakenly entering an extra plus sign gets a validation error. While user mistakenly entering an extra alphanumeric character (far more common) does not.

Maybe they could ban adresses with `q` as well. Most people's names don't contain Q, so might be a user error.

Re: The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

#94

Post by ratww »

alkonaut wrote: post #89
ratww wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to notify users Using + emails don't prevent that from happening. > limit erroneously input emails BS excuse. That's what email confirmation, confirmation link, smtp inbox validation, etc, are for. > cross reference to existing databases Not being able to be cross referenced is a feature for the user, not a bug. > Even if I have no interest in selling emails, it's still a net benefit if leaked data (e.g.…

> It's benefit for the company, not for the user. Yes. Absolutely 100% agree. What I'm arguing is: if you are ready to annoy a tiny fraction of your users, you will get away with a simpler validation, that is better FOR YOU AS A COMPANY, because it has some benefits ranging from shady to just half-shady. This is why companies do this. Not just a small share of them, and not only because developers didn't understand t…

Sure. But my whole point is that all the other reasons are not legitimate, the whole point of blocking + is to cover the company's ass, there's no legitimate potential issues with notification, or even to prevent errors. It's just BS rationalisation.

Re: The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

#95

Post by ratww »

nprateem wrote: post #47

A week in and I'm already bored of Copilot submissions... It's not perfect. What do you expect?

Not being perfect would be acceptable, but at this point it looks like something with the potential of setting back software quality and security [1], with the added bonus of also breaking copyright/licensing.

[1] I understand that everyone should review code before committing, but even if me and my team do it, there's no way all the proprietary and open-source software I use has teams doing the same. That's why I worry for my security.

Re: The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

#96

Post by roblabla »

foxpurple wrote: post #78
foepys wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does GitHub Copilot tell me which license the code it suggested has? If not it's a huge difference to code search engines.

Copilot is not a search engine. It synthesises code so it is unlicensed.

The judge is still out on the licensing issue. And given it can, at least sometimes, output verbatim copy paste, including comments, of well-known GPL code[0], well, let's just say the issue is not clear-cut.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287

Re: The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

#97

Post by flippinburgers »

tlrobinson wrote: post #15
nicetryguy wrote: post #3

Is === really necessary for Javascript? Type checking seems like overkill?

It’s a well known rule in JavaScript to default to “===“ for everything except checking for null or undefined, in which case “== null” is acceptable. https://eslint.org/docs/rules/eqeqeq#smart Even better is to just use TypeScript.

Does typescript really protect one from javascript though?

I imagine it is fine. If it was just myself developing I would be fine, but the insufferable junior devs that learned "=== or die" rear their ugly heads.

Re: The Good and the Limitations of Github Copilot

#98

Post by maccard »

corobo wrote: post #87
maccard wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never did that. It got the license wrong so it wasn't an exact copy...

Until a court decides what it does and doesn't do I'm staying clear Here's it outputting Quake code, including handy comments it came up with for each line and even an entire line of commented out code. Maybe it decided it was a good choice to comment it out but still include it I guess Being word for word from the original is just a weird coincidence too I truly wanted it to be as good as it was sold to us too, but…

It didn't copy the entire file for quake - it got the license wrong (which is even worse!) That what I said in my original comment!
Post reply on HN