Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | BuildItBusk's commentslogin

I think this does a great job of explaining the .claude directories in a beginner friendly way. And I don’t necessarily read it as “you have to do all this, before you start”.

It has a few issues with outdated advice (e.g. commands has been merged with skills), but overall I might use share it with co-workers who needs an introduction to the concept.


I really like the jig analogy. But that the software jig is no different from production software, I don't buy. Saying that the bytes are the same, is like saying that the atoms of a jig is the same as the atoms in the final product.

GenAI generally makes software cheaper. But there is a huge difference in how much. Prototypes and jigs may be 90% cheaper (just making up numbers here), while for production software it may be closer to 10%.


I guess that depends on how you use agents (SRE or in general). If you ask it a question (even implicitly) and blindly trust the answer, I agree. But if you have it help you find the needle in the haystack, and then verify that did indeed find the needle, suddenly it’s a powerful tool.


I built this to solve a personal annoyance - reformatting recipes from messy sources (blog posts, screenshots, social media comments).

Instead of trying to parse every possible recipe format, I treat it as a transformation problem. Paste messy text, AI interprets the structure, you get clean output. The app preserves attribution and stores both versions so you can verify the interpretation.

Tech: Next.js + PostgreSQL + OpenAI API, deployed on Vercel.

GitHub: https://github.com/BuildItBusk/share-recipes

Happy to answer questions or hear feedback!


I love how simple it is to use and works well.

I don't seem to see the original to verify the output in the formatted or shared view unless I'm missing something?


I have been fiddling quite a bit with that. Could be that I actually lost that functionality along the way. I will take a look at it. Thanks!


I have to admit that my first thought was “April’s fool”. But you are right. It makes a lot of sense (if they can get it to work well). Not only is Excel the world’s biggest “programming language”. It’s probably also one of the most unintuitive ways to program.


If you exclude macros with IO it’s actually the most popular purely functional programming language (no quotes) on the planet by far.


Why unintuitive?


This is already a feature in an app called MacroFactor. But there is definitely room for improvement in the field.

One thing that I miss in MacroFactor is that it should have some memory of my previous choice.

Example: If I take a picture of a glass of milk, it always assumes it to be whole milk (3.5% fat). Then I change it to a low fat milk (0.5% fat). But no matter how many times I do that, it keeps assuming that the milk in the photo is whole milk.


Hmm, good idea. I'm adding the ability to add "context" so taking a hpoto shouldn't return the same result.


As mentioned, HTML is indeed a programming language. But it’s one that is rarely used on its own. So you could argue that having it as a thing of itself in these lists, makes little sense.


I contest this. It has no features of programming languages: no way to set or read variables, or to evaluate expressions, or any kind of flow control.

If it’s a programming language, so is Markdown. (It’s not, either.)


Take a look at this conditional here:

<picture> <source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="logo_dark.svg"> <img src="logo.svg" alt="logo" width="48"> </picture>


"(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" is CSS


HTML on its own is not Turing complete, so it’s not a programming language in any practical sense. It’s a markup language.


There are non-Turing complete programming languages, and there are many things that are Turing complete but have nothing to do with programming (even PowerPoint), so this is neither a required nor sufficient property.

I believe a reasonable way to categorize languages as programming or not is simply.. what is it's primary use case. HTML's last two letters tell us exactly that it is not a programming language.


not sure if that's a good criterion. There are also non Turing complete languages like core SQL or Rocq that definitely feel like programming.


Things can and often do feel like other things that they are not.


I think "A language often involved in the process of making computer programs" is way too weak to define a "Programming language". A programming language at least needs to have state/expressions/logic. I'm sure there is a good definition, but if we allow html then any markup is programming and that's obviously false so the line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reason this debate is so strange is because some people think it's gatekeeping to say someone who writes html for a living isn't "programming". It's nonsense.


HTML isn't turing complete


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: