[HN Gopher] Show HN: AI Tool Is Now Supporting React, Angular, C...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: AI Tool Is Now Supporting React, Angular, CSS, Svelte, Vue
Author : m4rcxs
Score : 86 points
Date : 2024-08-23 13:58 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.webcrumbs.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.webcrumbs.org)
| foreigner wrote:
| Pricing model?
| heyjmac wrote:
| Free so far
| compacct27 wrote:
| Well. I guess the demo doesn't work for react components even
| when prompted for them? Overall the output seemed best for static
| demo showcasing, it was all HTML
| heyjmac wrote:
| Try clicking "Choose Framework" or "Export Code". There you can
| find all the available formats to export =)
| compacct27 wrote:
| Gotcha, that wasn't obvious on mobile
| m4rcxs wrote:
| The reason is that the mobile version doesn't include all
| the tools available in the desktop version. The mobile
| version is more of a 'light' or 'shortened' version,
| offering fewer features for a more streamlined experience.
| pants2 wrote:
| I asked for an 'interactive particle simulation' and got a big
| gray rectangle. Then I clicked regenerate and the page crashed.
|
| To me it's not clear how I would debug the component, I can ask
| for modifications but not like add log statements, inspect
| variables, and give feedback on errors.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| Welcome to the future!
| gmaster1440 wrote:
| How about Svelte 5 with runes mode?
|
| One of the biggest challenges I've encountered so far while
| working on my SvelteKit with Svelte 5 codebase is that all
| frontier models struggle to understand differences between major
| versions of languages and frameworks, leading to a lot of
| annoying hallucinations. They're fantastic at writing code, but
| the last mile of figuring out how to fix issues for incorrect
| APIs or syntax becomes very tedious.
| segfaltnh wrote:
| That's because they don't "understand" any of it. I think the
| interesting space here is in getting the machinery around the
| model to correct the output before returning it to users, which
| is the sort of space I'm assuming this app plays it.
| eurekin wrote:
| I work around that (with limited success) by prepending the
| latest docs (migration guides, how-tos) into the conversation.
| gpt-4o picks that up perfectly
| pennomi wrote:
| This is an enormous footgun that makes AI absolutely impossible
| to use in Godot. You get a ton of Godot 3 code output which
| really doesn't resemble Godot 4 code at all, despite having the
| same name.
| matsemann wrote:
| I'm a bit afraid that LLMs will make it harder for new
| frameworks and tools, as they have far fewer examples to
| learn from. And if that will make it so that the established
| frameworks remain status quo.
| soco wrote:
| Food for thought: let's say AI (some day) delivers a
| working application, will it still matter which framework
| it is written? AI writes it, we complain about a problem,
| AI fixes it, we programmers are out of jobs (at least web
| application programmers) and the users get updates and
| finally working applications. I know we are not there yet,
| but at that imaginary later point, I think frameworks will
| be a thing of the past.
| goatlover wrote:
| Who is instructing the AI to make an application, fix
| bugs and issue updates? Is the customer doing all this or
| the manager taking time out of their day? Are either of
| those really fit to figure out whether the app actually
| meets what the customer needs?
|
| Seems like the software engineering role is still needed
| at the higher level, and that would still likely require
| some sort of framework to help make sense of what the AI
| is generating, so you can instruct it accordingly.
| __jonas wrote:
| I think with regards to changes within existing frameworks,
| that would actually be kind of nice.
|
| I really wish framework developers would stick with an
| existing decent solution longer instead of trying to
| release new versions with breaking changes in search of
| some kind of ideal API.
|
| I actually prefer the syntax of Svelte 5 with runes over
| the previous one as it looks a little less magical to me,
| but I still wish they wouldn't release another major
| version and instead just focus on making Svelte 4 really
| solid. I felt the same about the React move from class
| components to hooks. I know these two examples come with
| backwards compatibility, but still would be nice to have
| just one way to do something and make it really solid and
| polished.
| Asraelite wrote:
| The future of AI-assisted coding is probably agents that
| can automatically test the code candidates they generate.
|
| That should help mitigate the problem. If it tries to use
| the old API it just won't compile.
| yawnxyz wrote:
| As a non-LLM, I got so confused with Svelte 5's runes, that I
| just avoided it altogether by not touching it haha
| sergiotapia wrote:
| how hard would it be have a Phoenix .html.heex mode instead of
| your typical react/angular? .html.heex is really just plain old
| HTML with tailwind css classes. I could easily copy and paste
| your generated UIs into my views and play around there! thanks!
| heyjmac wrote:
| You can export and even download a functioning .html! Does that
| help?
| sergiotapia wrote:
| for sure, I guess I didn't see that UI button to export as
| html
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Can you tell what is different from Claude Sonnet besides some
| frontend help? Can you tell a bit more about the stack / tech if
| it's more than just getting some LLM (gpt/clause) to come up with
| pages and rendering them?
| m4rcxs wrote:
| Frontend-AI goes beyond just utilizing a standard LLM like GPT
| or Claude. While these models are powerful for generating
| content, our tool is specifically designed to streamline front-
| end development by providing specialized support for frameworks
| like React, Angular, Svelte, Vue, and CSS.
| causal wrote:
| Interesting. I like that better developer tooling is coming out.
|
| That said, this particular tool seems like it's trying to be very
| hand-holdy, maybe not targeting developers?
|
| For developers Claude Dev seems like a more functional
| equivalent: https://github.com/saoudrizwan/claude-dev
| nickreese wrote:
| Definitely look into cursor if you like Claude dev. It isn't
| apples to apples, but their chat mode is very similar.
| causal wrote:
| This one? https://www.cursor.com/
|
| Looks like it's not open source
| nickreese wrote:
| Yeah, not open source.
| dboreham wrote:
| Approaching the singularity...since no human understands all
| those things.
| nickreese wrote:
| I've been using AI models to do frontend design and candidly this
| doesn't hold a candle to just working directly with the base
| models.
|
| With the base models you can ask: Hey, make me 5 designs that fit
| xyz requirements and it will go to work. If you already know
| front end design, you can take that up a level and pass it an
| emmet abbreviation of the rough code you want and say only use
| tailwind colors of sky, zinc, and blue.
|
| I am decidedly not your audience, but if anyone on HN is thinking
| about how to speed up frontend dev and they are a frontend dev,
| I'd suggest just messing with the base models more.
|
| Once you get the hang of it, it can be like working with a
| designer who's feelings don't get hurt... which I love.
|
| "Meh, I don't like those designs, generate me 5 more and feel
| free to increase the model's temperature up quite a bit to see if
| you can come up with something cool."
| runnr_az wrote:
| I'm not really sure what you mean by "base models?"
| punkspider wrote:
| They're likely referring to using the large language models
| (GPT, Claude, etc.) through their primary interfaces, because
| you get more control by interacting with the LLM directly.
| nickreese wrote:
| Claude, GPT, Llama3.1 directly. The models are really capable
| if you prompt correctly.
| lasermike026 wrote:
| Wow, look at that.
| mgaunard wrote:
| is there a web framework that managed to significantly iterate on
| knockout or is it all needless fluff to spout more buzzwords
| every week?
| skapadia wrote:
| I'm not having much success with this beyond very basic
| components. I think I'd have more success iteratively working
| with ChatGPT or Claude directly, and then pasting the code into
| jsfiddle, pastebin, or replit to see the results and iterate.
| m4rcxs wrote:
| I understand your point, iterating with ChatGPT or Claude can
| be a great approach for many cases. Our focus with Webcrumbs is
| to speed up front-end component creation, especially for those
| looking for a quicker, more direct solution. But of course,
| there's always room for improvement! If you have specific
| suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
| algo_trader wrote:
| When exporting the code, all the field values are hard coded
| in the react/html and no easy way to get data from a
| rest/api.
|
| Maybe i am missing something. I tried the trading template
|
| Also: BUG report.
|
| I asked for a complex field change. This gave me an orange
| error message "failed try again". But now there is no
| abort/cancel button. Only a retry button.
|
| Good luck
| rd wrote:
| I'm begging you to try out cursor and sonnet as the model.
|
| It is incredible, and it genuinely feels like magic when it
| comes to codebase context.
| m4rcxs wrote:
| Thank you, great idea! have you joined at the discord
| channel?
| ggregoire wrote:
| In this case is it not faster to just code the component
| yourself?
| neilv wrote:
| Code LLM tools are more defensible when they work only by
| training on documentation and public domain code of the languages
| and frameworks.
|
| But they tend to have also been trained on code under copyright,
| without license to do so.
|
| Some code LLM tools vendors have had to put in 'safeguards', to
| try to avoid further embarrassing evidence of outright copying.
| That doesn't mean that they're not still often passing through
| obfuscated copying.
|
| In real life, when someone is caught plagiarizing, such as
| copying a paragraph from a published work, and changing some
| words to fit, it's a career-ending scandal.
|
| And other times, in a grayer area, of mechanical mashing up of
| multiple works, with the intent of "take these multiple
| copyrighted works, and mechanically combine them to my needs, in
| a way that's hard to explain to a judge, and forget about all the
| copyrights, so I can claim copyright". (Hey, if merely saying
| "it's an app" can smokescreen an illegal taxi service, hotel
| service, or rental price-fixing, just think how effective a
| shield even matrix multiplication is.)
|
| In software, copying code without license, or being tainted by
| exposure to code when you're supposed to "cleanroom" it, are both
| already considered illegal or shady.
|
| A lot of the current enthusiasm around generative AI feels a bit
| like the popularity of media piracy -- many people know, or have
| a nagging suspicion, that it's against norms or laws, but it's
| just so appealing, and everyone around you is doing it.
|
| It also has the dynamic of the many exploiting the relative few
| creators, in a way that wasn't part of the social contract or
| laws, and which the creator doesn't want, but the many can simply
| take.
|
| Especially when the many are armed and cheered on, by tool
| vendors, many of whom should know exactly what they're doing, but
| who want to win big from this nonconsensual exploitation of the
| works of others.
|
| And, as the former head of Google recently advised at Stanford,
| just take it, get big money, and pay lawyers later.
| algem wrote:
| I can't stand these "tools". And I find it morally wrong trying
| to automate every little thing a developer does.
| m4rcxs wrote:
| The goal of Frontend-AI isn't to fully automate the process,
| but rather to save you time by generating a strong starting
| point. As the code becomes more complex, it might require some
| refactoring, so developers still need to put in effort to
| refine and enhance it.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Consider it an improved version of auto complete in your IDE.
| It helps type pieces of code faster, it doesn't do any of the
| thinking involved in building a software product.
| algem wrote:
| It isn't an improved version of autocomplete though, it
| allows you to submit a design / image and output code.
| Narrowing the gap between designer and developer.
| Kiro wrote:
| What is your argument exactly? What's morally wrong with
| automation?
|
| Don't get me wrong. There are many good arguments against
| AI but claiming we don't need more automation is one I
| don't understand, so please enlighten me.
| algem wrote:
| For me it boils down to the reduction of jobs, pay and
| displacement of workers. Industry is already over
| saturated and the evolution of automation has sped up
| greatly. This type of automation goes hand in hand with
| displacement. I don't foresee some great enlightenment at
| the end of the tunnel here, I see the end of development
| as it looks today. And I don't think it will have any
| resemblance of the past.
| hooverd wrote:
| Everything will be worse, slower, more poorly designed
| and even well less understood?
| rcconf wrote:
| Should we as developers put more effort into defending our craft?
| The movements in the artistic space with AI were very widespread
| and vocal, but we developers seem not to care. I feel like
| developers in general are a bit more quiet and timid with things
| and it leads to companies or entire industries taking advantage
| of us.
|
| Am I the only one who feels like developers really need to be a
| bit more vocal in defending themselves, their craft, and even
| their sanity? Are we quiet because of the large salaries in the
| space?
|
| I suppose the biggest question is how do you defend the craft but
| at the same time keep the advantage of automation and AI? (is it
| unions?)
| willsmith72 wrote:
| Depends on your motive. I enjoy the "art" of programming, but I
| enjoy even more using it to build cool stuff, make companies
| happy, start side projects or even businesses.
|
| I've not seen any indication an AI legitimately replacing
| software engineering, rather enhancing it perhaps resulting in
| the need for fewer engineers for the same work. Even as an
| engineer that's a huge win.
|
| The role is less coding, more engineering. I suppose if the
| "craft" is the coding part, you're right it may need defending,
| but to me that's not the craft
| rkuodys wrote:
| Totally in the same camp. How I see AI improvement- is that
| if you needed couple developers to launch something, now you
| can do it yourself. Meaning the cost of launch is lower and
| that I think should be appreciated not fighted against.
|
| If developer is actually solving the problems, it's like
| giving a tractor to dig a hole in addition to shovel
| bongodongobob wrote:
| If AI is building better software why stop it? If it's not,
| what's the threat? What's to defend? Our right to build worse
| software? Prevent people from using tools as they see fit?
| What's course of action would you take?
| haliskerbas wrote:
| Losing my sweet, sweet TC is the threat.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| No, as except for an elite artistic few, the defenders of
| unproductive ways or even those who refuse to aggressively
| upskill, end up poor with few prospects.
|
| This is especially true in an industry where anyone can jump in
| (unless we want to lock computers behind licences).
|
| I want the high salary to continue, so I will move where the
| tools take me. AI let's me generate a ton more features in the
| same amount of time.
| cheema33 wrote:
| > Should we as developers put more effort into defending our
| craft?
|
| Fight against AI tools? You are not likely to win that battle.
|
| Horse carriage manufacturers would not have stopped car makers,
| regardless of how hard they tried or unionized. You have to
| adapt.
| petabyt wrote:
| Code doesn't really have the same 'human touch' the way art
| does. We've spent the past 20 years making libraries, higher
| level languages, UI frameworks, etc to make development faster.
| If there's any 'human touch' it's a lot higher level than just
| the lines of code. Art has mostly been the same for a very long
| time. Especially painting/drawing. For most people it's a
| passion and creative outlet. From what I've seen (some) AI
| investors say so far, they want to replace that creativity.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Art and technology used to be... the same. Almost nobody
| really wants the artistry that comes with well crafted code
| these days though. It's mostly just about being done.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| And that applies to more that just code. Buildings, tools,
| cutlery, furniture, whatever -- everything used to have way
| more craftsmanship.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I suspect that developers and luddites are almost entirely
| separate groups of people.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Should we as developers put more effort into defending our
| craft?
|
| No.
|
| Nobody worried about optimizing compliers taking the jobs of
| assembly programmers.
|
| Tools make us able to do _more_ not less. This is just one
| more. And it happens to be pretty good at doing obvious boring
| things that have been done a million times which most of us
| don't want to do anyway.
|
| Like recently I needed to design a nice html error page, I
| don't have a designer to go to, and it wasn't really a big
| enough deal for that kind of thing anyway. Instead of having to
| dust off a bunch of web design skills and spend a long time
| figuring out fiddly little style sheet things... or just doing
| a terrible job... I asked AI to do it. 90% of the work was done
| in 10 seconds, then I spent 5 minutes polishing it. If I did it
| myself it would either have been a couple of hours to get
| something as nice or for the same 5 minutes I could have done a
| shit job. Nobody lost work because of AI that day, I was just
| able to do more important things than make an internal
| developer-facing error page look nice.
| Retr0id wrote:
| I think developers just don't feel threatened by it, not yet at
| least. For software it's more of a "rising tide that lifts all
| boats".
|
| I've yet to personally benefit from AI in any of my workflows,
| in any meaningful capacity, but I wouldn't complain if that
| changed.
| llama_drama wrote:
| The best defense is to keep improving as programmers. By
| constantly refining our skills and learning new technologies we
| maintain our relevanse and value. AI and automation are tools
| that can enhance our work, not replace it.
| hatenberg wrote:
| Pretty sure every single profession affected by
| industrialisation said the same...
|
| This is just machines for the knowledge economy.
| Kiro wrote:
| The difference between AI art and AI code is that the latter
| can never be used for anything more than prototypes for someone
| who doesn't know how to code. For people who know how to code
| it becomes a super power.
| kabes wrote:
| No, because
|
| 1. It's a fight you can't win
|
| 2. It might allow me to finally build the ideas I have. I have
| better things to do than striking a keyboard all day.
|
| I can't wait for AI to replace me.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I don't feel threatened by it, and I haven't seen anything that
| warrants this reaction. Putting code into files is trivial
| entry-level stuff. Let me know when an automation flawlessly
| (as in 100% accuracy), consistently (not just once), and with
| truly arbitrary requests (not cherry-picked) pulls off systemic
| refactors and feature additions to one or more massive
| codebases full of poorly written, non-standard garbage. For the
| record, I find today's AI tools useful, but they do not at all
| threaten my livelihood.
| ActionHank wrote:
| Just leave it to run itself out.
|
| Right now the sales pitch is "magical machine spits out any
| code you can imagine and it will all just work". This isn't the
| case now and I doubt it will be the case in the future.
|
| It will get really good and make things faster and more easily,
| but you will still need to know how to use it to be effective
| and you will still need to understand the underlying tech to be
| the most effective.
|
| It's like carpentry and powertools. Carpenters and slap
| together a whole house in a day, a big part being due to power
| tools. There are still carpenters who are all about the craft
| and traditional ways and they make amazing pieces of furniture
| and there are those who need to build houses, fast. Finally
| there are those who dip into carpentry and realise that it is a
| whole lot of new knowledge and a degree of understanding that
| was invisible to them before trying.
|
| If you don't know what you're doing a power tool won't make you
| a great carpenter.
| richardw wrote:
| Quite a few responses to your questions based on current state
| of AI.
|
| Firstly, this is never going backwards. It will only get more
| capable. There will likely be algo changes that unlock new
| capabilities over time. There are definitely areas that humans
| have the advantage but this is similar to the "god of the gaps"
| concept in that the area where people have an advantage will
| reduce over time.
|
| There's currently no real understanding in the model and it's
| really amazing what we can do with hyper-autocomplete. Humans
| made that happen. We're the ones doing the innovation.
|
| We've long been in the business of automating jobs away. This
| time it's our own.
|
| For the foreseeable future, get good at leveraging it and stay
| current.
|
| (Intuition: AI is also good at the business layers. It can
| probably produce better specs than many (not all) people paid
| to do it. It can generate ideas and communicate them in many
| formats. It's super confident, so could easily be a consultant.
| I don't think the business analysts and strategy people should
| be too confident.)
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| This works better than I expected. Orient your front page to give
| a less vague and more detailed example, because specific results
| are excellent. I am discouraged by the overuse of rounded
| corners, but encouraged by the correctly equalized white space
| and "in sample" choice of font sizes, paddings, etc. It does
| things well that programmers do poorly.
|
| IMO the document layout folks and people building on top of that
| like at least 1 YC startup have a more promising path forward for
| whole-cloth complex component representations versus LLMs with
| robust prompts but no fine tuning.
| amsheehan wrote:
| All of the properties controls are bound to a network request.
| This is a big bummer. I don't like having to wait 400ms every
| time I change a color.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-23 23:01 UTC)