ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
I've been working almost exclusively with coding agents since January of this year, and over the past few months I began to feel utterly exhausted by them. They're great, but I'm finding it more and more tedious to write full sentences for every change I want. Not only that, but it seems there's a complexity limit for codebases - beyond a certain point the agent begins confusing itself.
I'd like to go back to writing code, but I don't want to go all the way back to fully manual coding. So I've come up with this interaction paradigm where you:
1. write pseudocode in whatever way makes the most sense to you
2. on save, the editor synchronizes your work to real source code
3. the pseudocode is persisted alongside the generated code, making your prompt effectively a stored record of intent.
Right now it's just a proof of concept - installation instructions are here in the readme: https://github.com/danielvaughn/hz
You can also watch a video of it in action here: https://x.com/danielvaughn/status/2090456808431165715
Cheers!
Discussion (35 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
That's the way software engineers working on large projects work anyway: you first gather context on the state of the system and read it at a level you can understand. Then you propose a change on the simplified representation, and then holistically update the machine-runnable format ("implementation").
I'd be interested in tools that formalize/automate this process more.
The challenge I see more broadly is we (as engineers now empowered by LLMs) are trying to find the right level of abstraction to operate in. Writing long form sentences and (sometime) reviewing the output feels too far away. But having an LLM work directly with you in an IDE feels too close to “the old way”.
Personally for me the approach here still feels a little too close to the lower level old way, but it’s better than the two approaches above.
Excited to see where you take it!
At what point will you need formal rigid syntax? Or is not having rigid syntax the point? If the latter, how much "informational noise" or ambiguity can you inject before the "DSL compiler" gets confused?
Scaling is another bit. Convertible Psuedocode a great pattern for writing functions, but is it useful for writing modules? If you're writing a paragraph to change behavior of a function, you're underutilizing LLMs. Paragraphs are best for spec'ing modules, and the LLMs already fill in the blanks. Not sure if it would be faster to psuedocode the entire module (although maybe just the interface would be a sweet spot...)
My guess is that if you simply write `use some_fn from $repo/some/path`, the LLM _should_ be smart enough to infer in most cases. But we'll have to see how reliable that is.
Just a few days ago someone was talking about a machine - human patois.
This (your project) sits somewhere between Lean and BDD cucumber syntax.
At the same time Claude spits out phrases like “a container paying the price of -42px”.
Recently I was listening to a lecture about metaphor in poetry, the misconception that poems are riddles whereas we use metaphors all the time in our language because they convey the meaning more precisely.
Why not just put an instruction into your favorite harness’ system prompt: “If I give you pseudo code, spell out my intent, and then write and test it in real code.”
The issue is that with very large or complex codebases, you tend to forget what was AI generated and what was written by a human. And it's also extremely tedious and difficult to read AI generated code. So if you want to _understand_ a complex bit of code, the natural tendency is to ask an agent to summarize it for you. This can work but also has lots of problems.
What you really want is a system that persists both your written intent, and the actual source code. And you want to provide a source map between them, so that you can understand which bits of human pseudocode are responsible for which bits of generated code.
The real value is in persisting your expressed 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.
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.
> 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
What about multi-file / larger changes? How would you express files being connected, imports, and exports? Or are you thinking the hz files are disposable per change?
I'll be looking into multi-file stuff soon - it's an interesting can of worms to think through.
EDIT: same on Firefox on my Mac (macOS Ventura).
edit: fixed
As in micromanagement.
With scale problems arise.
I think you should work on your differentiation. The session management stuff is the greater concern, in my opinion; pseudo code is not a novelty.
You can already retrieve the session associated with a given line of code.
What I'm after is a condensed distillation of human intent using semi-formal symbolic language, which should be vastly easier to read and understand for engineers and teams.