The author argues that man pages themselves are a valuable and well-structured source of information, contrary to popular complaints. The problem, they contend, lies with the default man reader, which uses less, hindering navigation and readability. They suggest alternatives like mandoc with a pager like less -R or specialized man page viewers for a better experience. Ultimately, the author champions the efficient and comprehensive nature of man pages when presented effectively, highlighting their consistent organization and advocating for improved tooling to access them.
Smartfunc is a Python library that transforms docstrings into executable functions using large language models (LLMs). It parses the docstring's description, parameters, and return types to generate code that fulfills the documented behavior. This allows developers to quickly prototype functions by focusing on writing clear and comprehensive docstrings, letting the LLM handle the implementation details. Smartfunc supports various LLMs and offers customization options for code style and complexity. The resulting functions are editable and can be further refined for production use, offering a streamlined workflow from documentation to functional code.
HN users generally expressed skepticism towards smartfunc's practical value. Several commenters questioned the need for yet another tool wrapping LLMs, especially given existing solutions like LangChain. Others pointed out potential drawbacks, including security risks from executing arbitrary code generated by the LLM, and the inherent unreliability of LLMs for tasks requiring precision. The limited utility for simple functions that are easier to write directly was also mentioned. Some suggested alternative approaches, such as using LLMs for code generation within a more controlled environment, or improving docstring quality to enable better static analysis. While some saw potential for rapid prototyping, the overall sentiment was that smartfunc's core concept needs more refinement to be truly useful.
Docs is a free and open-source alternative to proprietary note-taking and knowledge management applications like Notion and Outline. Built with PHP and Symfony, it offers features such as a WYSIWYG editor, Markdown support, hierarchical page organization, real-time collaboration, and fine-grained access control. It aims to provide a robust, self-hostable platform for individuals and teams to create, organize, and share documents securely. Docs prioritizes simplicity and performance while maintaining a clean and intuitive user interface.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Docs as a self-hosted alternative to Notion, praising its open-source nature and potential for customization. Several commenters discussed the importance of data ownership and control, highlighting Docs as a solution to vendor lock-in. Some voiced concerns about features, performance, and the overall maturity of the project compared to established solutions like Notion, while others shared their excitement to try it and contribute. The lack of a mobile app was mentioned as a current drawback. There was also discussion around different database backends and the project's use of Tauri for cross-platform compatibility. A few commenters pointed out similar existing projects, offering alternatives or suggesting potential collaborations.
Python's help() function provides interactive and flexible ways to explore documentation within the interpreter. It displays docstrings for objects, allowing you to examine modules, classes, functions, and methods. Beyond basic usage, help() offers several features like searching for specific terms within documentation, navigating related entries through hyperlinks (if your pager supports it), and viewing the source code of Python objects when available. It utilizes the pydoc module and works on live objects, not just names, reflecting runtime modifications like monkey-patching. While powerful, help() is best for interactive exploration and less suited for programmatic documentation access where inspect or pydoc modules provide better alternatives.
Hacker News users discussed the nuances and limitations of Python's help() function. Some found it useful for quick checks, especially for built-in functions, while others pointed out its shortcomings when dealing with more complex objects or third-party libraries, where docstrings are often incomplete or missing. The discussion touched upon the superiority of using dir() in conjunction with help(), the value of IPython's ? operator for introspection, and the frequent necessity of resorting to external documentation or source code. One commenter highlighted the awkwardness of help() requiring an object rather than a name, and another suggested the pydoc module or online documentation as more robust alternatives for exploration and learning. Several comments also emphasized the importance of well-written docstrings and recommended tools like Sphinx for generating documentation.
Promptless, a YC W25 startup, has launched a service to automatically update customer-facing documentation. It connects to internal tools like Jira, Github, and Slack, monitoring for changes relevant to documentation. When changes are detected, Promptless uses AI to draft updates and suggests them to documentation writers for review and approval before publishing. This eliminates the manual process of tracking changes and updating docs, ensuring accuracy and reducing stale information for improved customer experience.
The Hacker News comments express skepticism about Promptless's value proposition. Several commenters question the need for AI-driven documentation updates, arguing that good documentation practices already involve regular reviews and updates. Some suggest that AI might introduce inaccuracies or hallucinations, making human oversight still crucial and potentially negating the time-saving benefits. Others express concern about the "black box" nature of AI-driven updates and the potential loss of control over messaging and tone. A few commenters find the idea interesting but remain unconvinced of its practical application, especially for complex or nuanced documentation. There's also discussion about the limited use cases and the potential for the tool to become just another layer of complexity in the documentation workflow.
The post details the process of reverse engineering the Bambu Lab printer's communication protocol used by the Bambu Handy and Bambu Studio software. Through network analysis and packet inspection, the author documented the message structures, including those for camera feeds, printer commands, and real-time status updates. This allowed for the creation of a proof-of-concept Python script capable of basic printer control, demonstrating the feasibility of developing independent software to interact with Bambu Lab printers. The documentation provided includes message format specifications, network endpoints, and example Python code snippets.
Hacker News commenters discuss the reverse engineering of the Bambu Handywork Connect print server software, mostly focusing on the legality and ethics of the endeavor. Some express concern over the potential for misuse and the chilling effect such actions could have on open communication between companies and their customer base. Others argue that reverse engineering is a legitimate activity, particularly for interoperability or when vendors are unresponsive to feature requests. A few commenters mention the common practice of similar reverse engineering efforts, pointing out that many devices rely on undocumented protocols. The discussion also touches on the technical aspects of the reverse engineering process, with some noting the use of Wireshark and Frida. Several users express interest in using the findings to integrate Bambu printers with other software, highlighting a desire for greater control and flexibility.
This spreadsheet documents a personal file system designed to mitigate data loss at home. It outlines a tiered backup strategy using various methods and media, including cloud storage (Google Drive, Backblaze), local network drives (NAS), and external hard drives. The system emphasizes redundancy by storing multiple copies of important data in different locations, and incorporates a structured approach to file organization and a regular backup schedule. The author categorizes their data by importance and sensitivity, employing different strategies for each category, reflecting a focus on preserving critical data in the event of various failure scenarios, from accidental deletion to hardware malfunction or even house fire.
Several commenters on Hacker News expressed skepticism about the practicality and necessity of the "Home Loss File System" presented in the linked Google Doc. Some questioned the complexity introduced by the system, suggesting simpler solutions like cloud backups or RAID would be more effective and less prone to user error. Others pointed out potential vulnerabilities related to security and data integrity, especially concerning the proposed encryption method and the reliance on physical media exchange. A few commenters questioned the overall value proposition, arguing that the risk of complete home loss, while real, might be better mitigated through insurance rather than a complex custom file system. The discussion also touched on potential improvements to the system, such as using existing decentralized storage solutions and more robust encryption algorithms.
The author argues that Knuth's vision of literate programming, where code is written for humans within a narrative explaining its logic, hasn't achieved mainstream adoption because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of programming. Rather than a linear, top-down process suitable for narrative explanation, programming is inherently exploratory and iterative, involving frequent refactoring and restructuring. Literate programming tools force a rigid structure onto this fluid process, making it cumbersome and ultimately counterproductive. The author proposes "exploratory programming" as a more realistic approach, emphasizing tools that facilitate quick exploration, refactoring, and visualization of code relationships, allowing understanding to emerge organically from the code itself.
Hacker News users discuss the merits and flaws of Knuth's literate programming style. Some argue that his approach, while elegant, prioritizes code as literature over practicality, making it difficult to navigate and modify, particularly in larger projects. Others counter that the core concept of intertwining code and explanation remains valuable, but modern tooling like Jupyter notebooks and embedded documentation offer better solutions. The thread also explores alternative approaches like docstrings and the use of comments to generate documentation, emphasizing the importance of clear and concise explanations within the codebase itself. Several commenters highlight the benefits of separating documentation from code for maintainability and flexibility, suggesting that the ideal approach depends on the project's scale and complexity. The original post is criticized for misrepresenting Knuth's views and focusing too heavily on superficial aspects like tool choice rather than the underlying philosophy.
Good software development habits prioritize clarity and maintainability. This includes writing clean, well-documented code with meaningful names and consistent formatting. Regular refactoring, testing, and the use of version control are crucial for managing complexity and ensuring code quality. Embracing a growth mindset through continuous learning and seeking feedback further strengthens these habits, enabling developers to adapt to changing requirements and improve their skills over time. Ultimately, these practices lead to more robust, easier-to-maintain software and a more efficient development process.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the article's premise regarding good software development habits. Several commenters emphasized the importance of writing clear and concise code with good documentation. One commenter highlighted the benefit of pair programming and code reviews for improving code quality and catching errors early. Another pointed out that while the habits listed were good, they needed to be contextualized based on the specific project and team. Some discussion centered around the trade-off between speed and quality, with one commenter suggesting focusing on "good enough" rather than perfection, especially in early stages. There was also some skepticism about the practicality of some advice, particularly around extensive documentation, given the time constraints faced by developers.
Summary of Comments ( 63 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631672
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that man pages are a valuable resource, but the tools for accessing them are often clunky. Several commenters point to the difficulty of navigating long man pages, especially on mobile devices or when searching for specific flags or options. Suggestions for improvement include better search functionality within man pages, more concise summaries at the beginning, and alternative formatting like collapsible sections.
tldrandcheatare frequently mentioned as useful alternatives for quick reference. Some disagree, arguing that man pages' inherent structure, while sometimes verbose, makes them comprehensive and adaptable to different output formats. Others suggest the problem lies with discoverability, and tools likeaproposshould be highlighted more. A few commenters even advocate for generating man pages automatically from source code docstrings.The Hacker News post titled "Man pages are great, man readers are the problem" (linking to an article of the same name) generated a substantial discussion with diverse opinions. Several commenters agreed with the article's premise, citing the density and comprehensive nature of man pages as strengths, and pointing to the awkwardness of
man's default pager,less, as a major usability hurdle. They suggest alternative pagers likebator incorporating search functionalities within the pager as improvements. One commenter specifically praised the use oftldrpages for quicker access to common usage examples, while acknowledging man pages as the ultimate source of truth. Another commenter noted how valuable the full technical specifications and corner cases documented in man pages are, even if they are not needed for everyday usage. The verbosity and occasional outdatedness of man pages were mentioned as minor drawbacks, though not significant enough to detract from their overall value.Some commenters argued against the article's premise. They expressed frustration with the structure of man pages, finding the information organization illogical and difficult to navigate, even with improved pagers. They criticized the lack of consistency across different man pages, making it challenging to predict where specific information might be located. These commenters often suggested alternative documentation formats like web pages or dedicated documentation sites, which they perceived as being more user-friendly. One commenter pointed out that the author's preferred approach using
man -Tpdfand a PDF viewer was a workaround rather than a solution to the underlying usability issues withman.A few commenters took a more nuanced approach, acknowledging the strengths of man pages while also recognizing their shortcomings. They proposed improvements such as better indexing and search capabilities, more consistent formatting, and perhaps even incorporating some of the strengths of alternative documentation styles into man pages themselves. One commenter highlighted the importance of context and how man pages, being primarily designed for command-line use, fit well within that specific context. They also pointed to the benefit of man pages being readily available offline, a crucial advantage in certain situations. There was also some discussion about the learning curve associated with using man pages effectively, with some users appreciating the challenge while others found it unnecessarily steep.
Finally, there were a few tangential comments, including one about the history of Unix documentation and the cultural significance of man pages. Another commenter questioned the value of man pages in the modern software development landscape, arguing that many modern tools and libraries often lack adequate man page documentation. Overall, the comment section reflects a wide range of opinions on the utility and usability of man pages, with a general agreement that improvements are needed but disagreement on the best approach to achieve them.