Parinfer simplifies Lisp code editing by automatically managing parentheses, brackets, and indentation. It offers two modes: "Paren Mode," where indentation dictates structure and Parinfer adjusts parentheses accordingly, and "Indent Mode," where parentheses define the structure and Parinfer corrects indentation. This frees the user from manually tracking matching delimiters, allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Parinfer analyzes the code as you type, instantly propagating changes and offering immediate feedback about structural errors, leading to a more fluid and less error-prone coding experience. It's adaptable to different indentation styles and supports various Lisp dialects.
Git's autocorrect, specifically the help.autocorrect setting, can be frustratingly quick, correcting commands before users finish typing. This blog post explores the speed of this feature, demonstrating that even with deliberately slow, hunt-and-peck typing, Git often corrects commands before a human could realistically finish inputting them. The author argues that this aggressive correction behavior disrupts workflow and can lead to unintended actions, especially for complex or unfamiliar commands. They propose increasing the default autocorrection delay from 50ms to a more human-friendly value, suggesting 200ms as a reasonable starting point to allow users more time to complete their input. This would improve the user experience by striking a better balance between helpful correction and premature interruption.
HN commenters largely discussed the annoyance of Git's aggressive autocorrect, particularly git push becoming git pull, leading to unintended overwrites of local changes. Some suggested the speed of the correction is disorienting, making it hard to interrupt, even for experienced users. Several proposed solutions were mentioned, including increasing the correction delay, disabling autocorrect for certain commands, or using aliases entirely. The behavior of git help was also brought up, with some arguing its prompt should be less aggressive as typos are common when searching documentation. A few questioned the blog post's F1 analogy, finding it weak, and others pointed out alternative shell configurations like zsh and fish which offer improved autocorrection experiences. There was also a thread discussing the implementation of the autocorrection feature itself, suggesting improvements based on Levenshtein distance and context.
Tabby is a self-hosted AI coding assistant designed to enhance programming productivity. It offers code completion, generation, translation, explanation, and chat functionality, all within a secure local environment. By leveraging large language models like StarCoder and CodeLlama, Tabby provides powerful assistance without sharing code with external servers. It's designed to be easily installed and customized, offering both a desktop application and a VS Code extension. The project aims to be a flexible and private alternative to cloud-based AI coding tools.
Hacker News users discussed Tabby's potential, limitations, and privacy implications. Some praised its self-hostable nature as a key advantage over cloud-based alternatives like GitHub Copilot, emphasizing data security and cost savings. Others questioned its offline performance compared to online models and expressed skepticism about its ability to truly compete with more established tools. The practicality of self-hosting a large language model (LLM) for individual use was also debated, with some highlighting the resource requirements. Several commenters showed interest in using Tabby for exploring and learning about LLMs, while others were more focused on its potential as a practical coding assistant. Concerns about the computational costs and complexity of setup were common threads. There was also some discussion comparing Tabby to similar projects.
Zyme is a new programming language designed for evolvability. It features a simple, homoiconic syntax and a small core language, making it easy to modify and extend. The language is designed to be used for genetic programming and other evolutionary computation techniques, allowing programs to be mutated and crossed over to generate new, potentially improved versions. Zyme is implemented in Rust and currently offers basic arithmetic, list manipulation, and conditional logic. It aims to provide a platform for exploring new ideas in program evolution and to facilitate the creation of self-modifying and adaptable software.
HN commenters generally expressed skepticism about Zyme's practical applications. Several questioned the evolutionary approach's efficiency compared to traditional programming paradigms, particularly for complex tasks. Some doubted the ability of evolution to produce readable and maintainable code. Others pointed out the challenges in defining fitness functions and controlling the evolutionary process. A few commenters expressed interest in the project's potential, particularly for tasks where traditional approaches struggle, such as program synthesis or automatic bug fixing. However, the overall sentiment leaned towards cautious curiosity rather than enthusiastic endorsement, with many calling for more concrete examples and comparisons to established techniques.
Summary of Comments ( 9 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42766205
HN users generally praised Parinfer for making Lisp editing easier, especially for beginners. Several commenters shared positive experiences using it with Clojure, noting improvements in code readability and reduced parenthesis-related errors. Some highlighted its ability to infer parentheses placement based on indentation, simplifying structural editing. A few users discussed its potential applicability to other languages, and at least one pointed out its integration with popular editors. However, some expressed skepticism about its long-term benefits or preference for traditional Lisp editing approaches. A minor point of discussion revolved around the tool's name and how it relates to its functionality.
The Hacker News post "Parinfer: Simpler Lisp Editing" generated a moderate discussion with several commenters sharing their experiences and perspectives on Parinfer and Lisp editing in general.
Several users praised Parinfer for its innovative approach to structural editing, finding it significantly easier and less error-prone than traditional parenthesis management in Lisp. One commenter stated that it transformed their Clojure editing experience, eliminating the constant struggle with parentheses and allowing them to focus on the code's logic. Another shared that Parinfer made them enjoy writing Lisp again after previous frustrations. The intuitive nature of Parinfer's paren-handling and its ability to infer correct structure was highlighted as a key advantage.
Some users compared Parinfer favorably to other structural editing tools and techniques, such as Paredit. While acknowledging Paredit's power, they found Parinfer's approach simpler to learn and use, leading to a more fluid coding experience. One comment specifically mentioned the reduced cognitive load when using Parinfer compared to Paredit. However, other users expressed a preference for Paredit, arguing that its explicit commands offered more control and predictability. This sparked a brief discussion on the merits of different approaches to structural editing.
A few commenters raised potential drawbacks of Parinfer. One concern was the learning curve associated with a new editing paradigm, although some argued that this was minimal compared to the benefits. Another commenter mentioned the possibility of unexpected behavior in certain edge cases, suggesting that understanding the underlying rules of Parinfer is important for effective use. A desire for better editor integration and more comprehensive documentation was also expressed.
The discussion also touched upon broader topics related to Lisp and code editing. One comment highlighted the historical challenges of Lisp editing and how tools like Parinfer address these issues. Another discussed the importance of proper tooling for enhancing developer productivity and enjoyment. A commenter also mentioned the relevance of Parinfer's approach to other languages with significant syntactic structure, suggesting potential applications beyond Lisp.
Overall, the comments reflect a generally positive reception of Parinfer, with many users appreciating its simplified approach to Lisp editing. While some concerns and alternative viewpoints were presented, the overall sentiment suggests that Parinfer offers a compelling solution to a longstanding challenge in Lisp programming.