user34283

What they don't need is hardcoding support for five JS package managers in their python files.

In the post the maintainer says that an older version of bun "results in the ejs lockfile being ignored".

The reason is that they never committed the necessary lockfile despite listing "support" for that bun version.

They have separate lockfiles for other package manager versions: bun.lock, deno.lock, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml.

This part of the comment is also interesting: "which is a significant security concern for users when considering all of the recent npm supply chain attacks".

If you would set up a proper build for the JS artifact instead of committing four lockfiles to your repository, users would not be as exposed to npm supply chain attacks.

Or better yet, can someone explain why they build JS from python scripts with manual support for each package manager and a lockfile for each?

Obviously the JS build should happen outside of Python and use one package manager instead of attempting to support them all.

I speculate that I could indeed "vibe code" a better JS build integration because what they have does not make sense at a first look.

It appears they mixed JS building into their python project, aiming to support multiple package managers which are executed from their python script.

This explains the otherwise non-sensical explanation about bun < v2 ignoring the lockfile: they use a separate lockfile for each package manager. They did not check in one for bun v1, which they claimed to support, consequently it is not using a lockfile.

That's not how JS packaging normally works. I would set up a separate folder for the JS project, and use one package manager to build the project, like anyone else does.

Publish the package to npm, or bundle the tarball with your python program.

I guess the permission model of the JS runtime could be another topic, but at least they would have their build fixed without worrying about Node dependency resolution and package managers in their Python code.

There's 10-15 labs near the frontier, and like 30 serious inference providers, over 70 total on OpenRouter.

With research and hardware near guaranteed to bring the efficiency way up, I'm not scared here of massive price hikes.

There is no moat.

I don't see the benefit of checking in either prompts or specs.

I never tried spec driven development for myself, but if I review other's MRs I am typically exhausted after the first 10 lines.

And there are hundreds of lines, nearly always with major inaccuracies.

For myself I always found the plan mode to work well. Once the implementation is done, the code is the source of truth. If it works, it works.

When I want to add more functionality or change it, I just tell the agent what I want changed.

I doubt walls of semi-accurate existing specs are going to be beneficial there, but maybe my work differs from yours.

It would seem to me that the main source of food insecurity is violent conflict rather than greed.

I often hear people talk online about burning data centers to avoid some capitalist dystopia.

It just seems incredibly pessimistic to me. Who wants civil unrest? The rich elite does not want this either.

We will pay people.

Capitalism is not set in stone when human labor is no longer essential for productivity and AI can handle planning that markets currently coordinate through capitalism.

The difference is that you don't just pull again.

You guide the originally mediocre result towards a good outcome by providing feedback and potentially technical insights.

That's not a gamble, it works reliably enough.

Thanks, I appreciate the info.

But I don't think I'm going to email the mods and beg them to remove me from some list they added me to without notifying me.

I don’t feel like apologizing for complaining about the drivel some write because they don't like LLMs.

It was not my most substantial or productive comment, but I feel it is fair enough and did not target anyone in particular.

Contributing to HN is not worth it.

I'm spending my time, compromising my privacy, and advising potential competitors on what works best in my workflow. It's often not appreciated, so I might as well stop commenting so much.

I hope to publish my app in a month or two, after sufficient polish, market research, and App Store optimization.

As I said, it's not exactly realistic to ask for numbers and a Photoshop competitor within two months.

I am working like 20 hours a week on my new iOS app with Codex.

People on here talk like it was some belief or suggest I am somehow profiting from "hyping" AI.

Is it so hard to believe that agentic coding now works? Engineers are taking it up left and right.

Edit with reply: I can't, because the app is still in the works. Also my HN account is again rate limited and I won't be able to post more comments.

Edit number two to the other comment:

It's not really that expensive. With Anthropic it would be $200, with Codex the $100 subscription is sufficient.

It is interesting phrasing when you say that the providers "are making me think" the use of their service would be better, rather than me reaching this conclusion myself after using their services extensively for my work.

And honestly, I think I've had it with HN. I can't even participate properly in the discussion, maybe because some moderator thought my comments and opinions unworthy again.

This is pretty much true.

Before Codex with GPT 5.4 and 5.5 I was working on a single feature only, no parallel conversations, and a ton of permission prompts would make it impossible for the agent to even work for five minutes on its own.

Times have changed.

I understand Codex had 500k weekly users at the beginning of the year, now they have 4M.

GPT 5.4 came out at the start of March, GPT 5.5 end of April.

What do you expect, that we all go to market with a Photoshop competitor within two months?

Edit: and I can't provide any more replies since once again some automatic system or a mod rate limited my account for whatever reason.

Let's see at the end of the year how that went with the supposedly disappointing actual output and no layoffs.

With GPT 5.4 or 5.5 I did not notice degradation in performance when it was working on a large 5k line file containing a WebView, JS scripts, as well as native UI.

I instructed it to split it up anyway, yet I wonder how often the concerns around the mess are imaginative rather than practical.