Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

To be clear, I'm not really arguing that the intent is to embed comments. But I'm just going by the "validateSignature" example they give in the video. All that does is generate a 1-1 mapping of each code line to an English comment. TBH I would expect a senior developer to just be faster reading the code.

Perhaps there are some other examples that explain more of a "structural understanding" of the code, but I'm skeptical without more evidence.

View on HN

> TBH I would expect a senior developer to just be faster reading the code.

TBH, I would also expect this tool to be a lot more affordable than a senior developer for language X.

Plus, chances are good that your senior developer for language X will barely scrape by as an extremely junior developer for language Y that you also use in some capacity, and that there is a problem which involves stuff written in both X and Y. Also, many languages have horrid gotchas, where innocuous looking code does something quite unexpected. Like the C++ classic log->debug("Timeout: %d", config["timeout"]). If some tool where to actually tell you "Writes a debug log with the current value of timeout, if it exists, or otherwise sets it to 0", well that would be pretty useful for someone who has only superficial knowledge of C++.

> TBH I would expect a senior developer to just be faster reading the code.

That specific code? Sure. Real world code that’s gotten more convoluted over a decade of maintenance?

I have a dozen pages of notes I’ve taken on the apparent behavior of a single function, all of its call sites, all of the known possible kinds of states it might encounter, all of the categories of implications those states might carry and the kinds of downstream effects its return value might have. It’s not even a particularly large function as far as those go. The notes aren’t even complete, if I had to guess they’re 1/3 there. To be complete they’ll span not just several modules but cross package and language boundaries and even repo migrations. Not because the function itself is that complex (although it’s much more complex than I’d prefer), but because the universe of its inputs and usage is enormous and the history which produced it is long and just as convoluted. And, importantly, because the space of very similar behaviors and functions I’ve discovered has grown each time I peel a layer of the onion off.

Now when I go back to work, given I get to continue untangling this thing, having a tool which helps even explain this universe would be a godsend for actually acting on it in a reasonably safe way. Especially if it does so with consistent language. I could literally shove it into a database and query it, or do all kinds of other analysis. I can’t do that if I’m spending all of my energy trying to just describe the thing in my own words with incomplete understanding. I mean, I can. The documentation I’m describing literally began with me wrapping up the previous day’s notes with “humans built this, a human can understand it, model the damn thing”. But on what timeline? And is it a good use of my time to do it when a machine could probably do it more quickly and hopefully just as reliably at scale?

I’d be happy to share the evidence if my instinct proves out.

I'm sympathetic but it seems like you are wishing for something that this toll can't do.

Really? The thing it does in the video is almost identical to something I’ve spent days doing manually. Even if it's a small part of the task, it does it in about a second. Why do you think it doesn’t do what I think it does?

The problem with complex code is usually branches / conditionality.

Also complex indexing or expressions.

This stuff very rapidly stops being expressible in narrative form because the details can't be "compressed".

The explanation starts to look like legalese and you realise the code itself is the more compact and legible expression.

Ideally an autocommenter will be able to take a hand matmult and write "compute the surface normal" (this is an example where apparently high local detail can map to good conceptual compression) but actually that is the best possible case.

When it comes to important but somewhat arbitrary stuff like shipping or tax rules, english will not speed comprehension and is less good than a tageted dsl or well thought out tables.

The core problem is that "sometimes there is no simple explanation".

That’s all fine and good but the code exists already and even if I think its domain is an exceptionally good candidate for a DSL I can’t snap my fingers and make it morph into what I wish it was. And I can’t get there gradually without understanding what it is.

I’m well acquainted with its complexity but I need to articulate it coherently to justify changing any of it, not just to myself but to my team and stake holders. I’m not looking for a simple explanation. I’m looking forward to having tools help me navigate a very complicated explanation.

I also don’t understand the motivation here or upthread to splain the problem I’m solving away as some nihilistic unsolvable thing when I’m saying I see real prospects of this helping me. I mean, you’re welcome to whatever nihilism you see fit in your course of action but I personally don’t benefit from being told things I find potentially useful are not useful for me, actually.

More power to you if it's helpful to you.

So a better "output" might be a kind of chatbot that will answer questions about that particular piece of code. Basically it understands every detail including branches and you can ask whether a specific assumption is correct.

I don't think we're there yet (because complicated side effects etc. are a thing) but I would rather have such a solution than some text to read, after all I'd be using such a tool for code I cannot comprehend just by reading it.

It's possible that if you changed from translating the code to prose by hand and translating it with the tool, you would find that the "value" of that translation would be reduced. Basically, I think reading the code and mentally analyzing it enough to write to prose is doing most of the work, and when you read the prose, it's only a reminder for the deeper analysis you've done in your head.

It’s possible that you’re being a well meaning jerk. I said why I’d value it. Why not just let me value it?

Yeah, I find the signature example kind of unimpressive because it can just pick up the meaning of the code from the function name and variables, which an experienced human can do just as easily. If it could get "validates a signature with secret key" when all the variable names are obfuscated it might be useful in some code bases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com