3 ms·
> There’s no reliable record of human intent. Every engineer I have ever mentored got a lesson on how to write a good commit message that included this. This i
by r0ze-at-hn 2mo ago
> There’s no reliable record of human intent.
Every engineer I have ever mentored got a lesson on how to write a good commit message that included this. This is exactly that.
Further Huzzah from skimming it over seems to be re-inventing documenting your code.
Together I can only surmise that the author is new out of school or has simply not yet worked on a team with good coding practices.
- kennywinker 2mo agoTwo clicks from the article: > Welcome to my Github! I'm a web engineer who's been building front-ends since 2009. Most of my work is either closed source or behind paywalls, but here is where I tinker on side projects in my spare time. No need to dismiss the person - you can just say you don't like the approach
- danielvaughn 2mo agoA good commit message is not a record of human intent, it's a record of changes in human intent. You can read a change log to see the evolution of a codebase, sure. But before AI arrived on the scene, source code was a single artifact that directly expressed the intended behavior of a piece of software as it currently exists. After AI, the artifact is still there, but it's no longer the true record of human intent.
- r0ze-at-hn 2mo agoA good commit message will survive longer than this proposal is the point. What the author is proposing has a long history of similar ideas: Literate Programming, UML modeling, DSL crazes, and now to LLM-generated abstractions. AI isn't special. They always fail in the same ways as basic "commenting your code". One can even argue that unit tests are a close cousin to this same problem. Taken one step further how is Huzzah better than just using property tests?