zlacker

[return to "Show HN: NanoClaw – “Clawdbot” in 500 lines of TS with Apple container isolation"]
1. hebeje+L4[view] [source] 2026-02-01 23:29:17
>>jimmin+(OP)
I think these days if I’m going to be actively promoting code I’ve created (with Claude, no shade for that), I’ll make sure to write the documentation, or at the very least the readme, by hand. The smell of LLM from the docs of any project puts me off even when I like the idea of the project itself, as in this case. It’s hard to describe why - maybe it feels like if you care enough to promote it, you should care to try and actually communicate, person to person, to the human being promoted at. Dunno, just my 2c and maybe just my own preference. I’d rather read a typo-ridden five line readme explaining the problem the code is there to solve for you and me,the humans, not dozens of lines of perfectly penned marketing with just the right number of emoji. We all know how easy it is to write code these days. Maybe use some of that extra time to communicate with the humans. I dunno.

Edit: I see you, making edits to the readme to make it sound more human-written since I commented ;) https://github.com/gavrielc/nanoclaw/commit/40d41542d2f335a0...

◧◩
2. jimmin+Ca[view] [source] 2026-02-02 00:19:13
>>hebeje+L4
OP here. Appreciate your perspective but I don't really accept the framing, which feels like it's implying that I've been caught out for writing and coding with AI.

I don't make any attempt to hide it. Nearly every commit message says "Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5". You correctly pointed out that there were some AI smells in the writing, so I removed them, just like I correct typos, and the writing is now better.

I don't care deeply about this code. It's not a masterpiece. It's functional code that is very useful to me. I'm sharing it because I think it can be useful to other people. Not as production code but as a reference or starting point they can use to build (collaboratively with claude code) functional custom software for themselves.

I spent a weekend giving instructions to coding agents to build this. I put time and effort into the architecture, especially in relation to security. I chose to post while it's still rough because I need to close out my work on it for now - can't keep going down this rabbit hole the whole week :) I hope it will be useful to others.

BTW, I know the readme irked you but if you read it I promise it will make a lot more sense where this project is coming from ;)

◧◩◪
3. nialse+cK[view] [source] 2026-02-02 06:27:58
>>jimmin+Ca
”I don't care deeply about this code. It's not a masterpiece. It's functional code that is very useful to me.” - AI software engineering in a nutshell. Leaving the human artisan era of code behind. Function over form. Substance over style. Getting stuff done.
◧◩◪◨
4. _zolta+fQ[view] [source] 2026-02-02 07:37:09
>>nialse+cK
There should never have been an "artisan era". We use computers to solve problems. You should have always getting stuff done instead of bikeshedding over nitty-gritty details, like when in the office people have been spending weeks on optimizing code... just to have the exact same output, exact same time, but now "nicer".

You get paid to get stuff done, period.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. JKCalh+rC1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 14:28:59
>>_zolta+fQ
"You get paid to get stuff done, period."

It sounds like you hate your job? To be sure, I've done plenty of grinding over my career as a software engineer but in fact I coded as a hobby before it turned into a career, I then continued to code on the side, now I am retired and code still.

Perhaps the artist in me that keeps at it.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. satvik+6H1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 14:55:48
>>JKCalh+rC1
I don't think they hate their job, just seem to be frustrated at slow bureaucratic processes and long code reviews which I've experienced too. After a while it can get aggravating as to why some people want to nitpick minute details of the code which slows down development overall. I am talking about cases where the initially submitted PR is perfectly fine, not grossly incorrect.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. JKCalh+YM1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 15:27:13
>>satvik+6H1
Oh wow, if we're talking about code reviews that's a different topic. I've never, FWIW, encountered "artisans" in code reviews. More like "that's not how I would have coded itsans" and "let me show you some new tricksans".

Yeah, to hell with code reviews. The best years of my career were when I was given carte blanche control over an entire framework, etc. When code reviews came along coding at work sucked.

If anything, the code reviews killed the artisanship.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. satvik+vN1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 15:31:09
>>JKCalh+YM1
Yeah that's what I understood them to mean from "like when in the office people have been spending weeks on optimizing code... just to have the exact same output, exact same time, but now "nicer"." There does come such a time either way when the juice isn't worth the squeeze so to speak in terms of optimization of code.
[go to top]