[HN Gopher] We're open-sourcing the successor of Jupyter notebook
___________________________________________________________________
We're open-sourcing the successor of Jupyter notebook
Author : zX41ZdbW
Score : 157 points
Date : 2025-11-04 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (deepnote.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (deepnote.com)
| neves wrote:
| Instead of contributing to Jupyter, we will create another tools
| ciupicri wrote:
| Then they wouldn't be able to write this:
|
| > If [ _you_ ] look at the contributions graph, you'll see low
| commit velocity and very few unique contributors, including
| multi-month holidays with no commits.
| dbunskoek wrote:
| I'm not familiar with Deepnote, but I have quite a lot of
| experience with Jupyter, and if someone were to ask me if there
| are more modern alternatives I would immediately point them to
| marimo (https://marimo.io/). For me marimo is already a successor
| to Jupyter, it has replaced it entirely for me.
| renjieliu wrote:
| One thing I like about marimo is the autocompletion's much
| faster than Jupyter.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| Yup, Marimo seems perfectly gittable and Deepnote looks more of
| the status quo.
|
| > Human-readable format: The .deepnote YAML format replaces
| .ipynb's messy JSON with clean, version-control and human-
| friendly structure for projects and notebooks. You can organize
| multiple notebooks, integrations, and settings into a single
| .deepnote project for better structure and collaboration.
|
| https://marimo.io/blog/python-not-json
| qudade wrote:
| Marimo is much better for git than Jupyter. I only wish it
| had a gittable/reviewable version with output, too.
| taeric wrote:
| I confess that picking yaml doesn't feel safe to me. As much
| as it annoys people, fenced formats are the way, here. And if
| you aren't careful, you are going to recreate XML. Probably
| poorly.
| tacticus wrote:
| significant whitespace is just problematic in all spaces.
| culi wrote:
| I actually mostly use Jupyter for non-Python code (e.g. Julia
| or Ruby). How is Marimo's support for other languages?
| bonesss wrote:
| Non-existent AFAICT, files saved as '.py'. I use Jupyter
| primarily with F#, the multi-language support is huge.
| ilaksh wrote:
| How hard would it be to add creatine collaboration to Marimo?
| Evidlo wrote:
| Pretty easy. Just a scoop of whey.
| dmadisetti wrote:
| realtime collaboration is in under marimo experimental (just
| flip the flag)
|
| marimo doesn't support creatine :)
| nimish wrote:
| Have to say marimo is excellent and is a breath of fresh air
| compared to Jupyter!
| Panoramix wrote:
| What does it do better? I'm happy with Jupyter for most of my
| cases but never hurts to look around.
| qustrolabe wrote:
| Check out their YouTube channel where they show plenty of
| interesting features. But just to list some I can think of:
| - optional reactivity (i.e. you create chain of cells where
| editing 5th cells in the past causes update down the
| stream, pretty neat when working with dataframes). Its
| reactivity is a very cool feature once used to but you
| might not want it for something like running heavy ML
| training task so it can be toggled off - you can switch
| notebook to multi-column notebook mode - notebook is a web
| app that has sidebar with a lot of menus, there cool
| sections like Docs, Packages (you can download new packages
| right away there with uv), plenty of LLM integration with
| their custom prompts where you can reference dataframes so
| that it would be able to understand schema, some SQL and
| other DB integrations as well, cells can even contain SQL
| instead python code and output query result into python
| variable - thanks to reactivity it got a lot of interactive
| elements like sliders buttons text fields or ability to
| create entire own widgets, there's even mode where all code
| blocks get hidden and you're left with complete app - you
| can make web export of notebook that will translate python
| to WASM and publish it as fully working static page (though
| publishing something heavy complex like torch probably
| won't go well), this fits well with previous point as you
| can basically build simple interface hide all the code and
| publish it (like imagine matplotlib with couple of sliders)
| - DataFrames (pandas/polars) displayed as interactive
| tables where you can filter by columns, scroll through
| pages of rows etc - notebook stored in a .py format, unlike
| .ipynb with its json like structure. So code is very Git-
| friendly but you don't store computation results anymore
| moralestapia wrote:
| x2 to marimo, please try it if you haven't.
|
| I never really liked Jupyter. I've built a couple of
| "notebooks", as they have come to be known the days, much
| better than Jupyter and still switched to marimo, eventually.
| Quite similar to what I wanted to have.
| kccqzy wrote:
| But doesn't marimo force certain workflows that jupyter does
| not? For example its website states that "Notebooks are
| executed in a deterministic order, with no hidden state --
| delete a cell and marimo deletes its variables while updating
| affected cells." This appeals to people doing traditional
| software development work in notebooks, but it breaks workflows
| where people use notebooks as notebooks, where state is
| entirely separate from the in-notebook presentation of cells.
| Do people using notebooks these days hate this fundamental
| feature of notebooks? It's the key reason why notebooks aren't
| just a transcript of a REPL session!
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Anyone trying to reproduce the results in a shared notebook
| certainly hates that "feature"
| janalsncm wrote:
| Including the author themselves in the future sometimes.
| anakaine wrote:
| Not at all. Its just a development choice. Personally Id
| stick with Jupyter because state is maintained.
| mbreese wrote:
| _> Do people using notebooks these days hate this fundamental
| feature of notebooks? _
|
| It's one of the things that is the most confusing to people
| I've worked with. The idea that there is hidden state and you
| have to re-run cells to get variables to update (or variables
| still exist when you've deleted those cells) is quite
| confusing.
|
| If you're trying to have a reproducible workflow, it can be
| difficult. Jupyter is no different from other notebooks in
| this regard (RStudio, for example will happily run code and
| keep variables around that you don't reference any longer in
| your .R or .Rmd files.)
|
| But I see your point -- if you're using it as a long-term
| storage notebook, then this is the expected behavior. And you
| absolutely want to have "historical" data/results kept.
|
| I generally think of / use notebooks as a way to make reports
| for analyses. So, I want to work with them, draft them,
| change them, put them in git, etc... then run them all at
| once to get my output. For me, having a reproducible,
| documented workflow is more important. I don't want state to
| be kept outside of those one-off runs. Really until your
| comment, I didn't understand the other side of the issue, so
| thanks!
| verdverm wrote:
| Marimo has been acquired (last week), does the SaaS
| enshitification pattern give you any pause?
|
| https://marimo.io/blog/joining-coreweave
| kevinrineer wrote:
| Thanks for the link. I'm not a subscriber to their blog and
| would otherwise not have known about this change that affects
| the recommendations I have been giving people.
| verdverm wrote:
| I found it because they proudly present it at the top of
| their web pages, it only happened last thursday, so
| understandable people are not familiar with the fact it is
| under new management
| akshayka wrote:
| This is Akshay, the original creator of marimo. Our whole
| team has come over to CoreWeave. We're building a whole lot
| more, not less, and our number one priority continues to be
| the open-source. We're also growing the open-source team,
| i.e. we're hiring.
| verdverm wrote:
| sure sure, but I've been at an acquisition and we have seen
| countless more in the wild, the founders lose control over
| time and the parent company will do what they like,
| acquisition is a big red flag for me when considering
| adoption of a project
|
| you can say whatever you want, but we have history to help
| guide us, and it has not been kind to the acquisitioned
| company's current user base
| verdverm wrote:
| Will github render a Marimo notebook as if it has already been
| executed, like they do for Jupyter notebooks?
| joshgree8859 wrote:
| Framing of this seems a bit nasty tbh - jupyter deserves a little
| bit of respect on its name!
| kianN wrote:
| I agree with this. I have no problem with a technical
| discussion comparing the features and discussing Jupyter's
| shortcomings. But the Jupyter job postings and contribution
| graph screenshots felt both ill-spirited and not particularly
| relevant.
|
| There was interesting stuff here: the human readable format,
| auto publication. But the tone and framing bashing a reliable
| open source project really turned me off.
| ar_lan wrote:
| Yes, agree. To the point that I'm not very interested in
| looking them up.
| benatkin wrote:
| It isn't even _a_ successor. A successor would be open source
| from the start!
| bityard wrote:
| Jupyter does not have (or need) a successor.
| sireat wrote:
| Indeed regular Jupyter works so well on VS Code for solo work
| these days that there is no real need for a new entrant.
|
| So what pain point are these new entrants trying to solve?
|
| Sure there is an issue of .ipynb basically being a gnarly json
| ill suited for git but it is rare that I need to track down a
| particular git commit. Even then that json is not that hard to
| read.
|
| Also I'd like an easier way to copy cells across different
| Jupyter notebooks, but at the end of day it is just Python and
| markdown not very hard to grok.
| 7moritz7 wrote:
| Title and first paragraph make it sound like this is a project by
| the same people as (or endorsed by them) Jupyter. Apparently
| that's not the case and also it looks very similar to google
| colab so jupyter + better UI + some LLM integrations
|
| But kudos for going oss
| drnick1 wrote:
| Are there any other people who hate notebooks? Give a plain old
| script anytime. Run and edit anywhere without extra packages or
| even a Web browser.
| 7moritz7 wrote:
| *anywhere that has the python runtime installed
|
| ironically that makes jupyter more portable via colab
| culi wrote:
| notebooks are great for sharing code with people who might have
| only a cursory knowledge of coding. It also helps highlight
| specific sections of code. Graphs and other outputs immediately
| proceeding the block of code that generates them can be really
| helpful as well
|
| If a "script" gets too long and complicated, and it's a project
| I intend to present to others, I often reach for a notebook to
| organize the code in a more digestible format
| nixpulvis wrote:
| I have no real qualms with the idea of a notebook, as long as
| it's not adding a lot of custom magic. I should be able to
| share what I'm working on, iterate in a notebook with someone,
| then extract it into a standalone program without much thought.
| drnick1 wrote:
| One issue is that very often the "magic" happens in imported
| modules, so you can't really see what is happening unless you
| drop down to a text editor anyway. Then there is the infamous
| issue of modules not automatically reloading even when
| rerunning the Notebook.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| That in theory shouldn't be too bad. Though, there have
| been some things like %sql I remember using in one
| notebook, which was essentially a macro for making a
| datatable from a SQL expression, but it wasn't something
| you could just copy directly.
| bragr wrote:
| I've found that notebooks are great for ad hoc reporting and
| analysis scripts. Once you have your quick and dirty script, it
| is trivial to convert to a notebook and you get a lot for
| little. Being able to change one cell and rerun just that is a
| godsend for getting reports "just right", and the "show your
| work" and visual aspect make them much more consumable and
| trusted by other people.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| notebook are great when you wanna see the intermediate results
| and not just the final result (in case last step takes time and
| you wanna double check the data) or when you just wanna better
| understand what the code does (yes, you can set up a debugger
| and debug a script etc but that is just more pain)
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Notebooks aren't competing with scripts, they're competing with
| REPLs.
|
| ML and scientific applications in particular tend to have
| segments that run for a long time, but then you'd like the
| resulting script to be in a state where you can mess with it,
| maybe display some multimedia output, etc, without re-running
| the long-running segment. Notebooks fit this need to a tee.
| verdverm wrote:
| Notebooks are closer to using a repl than a script.
|
| One key feature is that you can run a long data-prep/processing
| step and then iterate on whatever comes after without having to
| re-run the compute intensive steps to get the data (i.e.) you
| want to graph
|
| Another key feature is learning and sharing knowledge. Images,
| markdown, graphs, links, code... all interwoven. Scripts do not
| have affordances for these things. In this sense, Notebooks can
| be closer to reproducible blog posts.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| I do think notebooks are very flawed right now even if the
| concept is sound. Right now they are essentially an IDE without
| the ability to produce publishable output (you are literally
| expected to ship the project in the form the IDE works with)
| and they are not a very good IDE at that.
|
| They need reliable dedicated published output fit for general
| public consumption. This means a static (no backend host
| required) sharable .html file where end users can view all the
| data and run the code samples that doesn't try to present as an
| IDE. I actually wrote
| https://rubberduckmaths.com/eulers_theorem in Jupyter but had
| to manually copy and paste to a new well formatted static html
| file and re-paste the code blocks into Pyodide enabled text
| areas within that html since the export functionality is a
| mess. The result of the manual work means i now have an easily
| sharable and easily hosted static html file with working Python
| code samples as it should be but... Why don't Notebooks have a
| published form like this already? It seems pretty obvious that
| Notebooks are your IDE, they shouldn't be the output you
| present. We're literally asking users today 'to view this
| notebook install Jupyter/Marimo/whatever and open from there'
| when the Notebook is designed to create the publication rather
| than a place to view it. In general the output i demonstrate
| above should be the minimum bar that Notebook 'export' features
| should hit. Export as a static .html file with working code. As
| someone who manually 'compiles' notebooks it's not hard to do
| yet Notebooks simply don't have an actual working html export
| right now (i know there's technically a 'html' export option in
| Jupyter but it will strip out your code and create a terribly
| poorly formatted document as output).
|
| The IDE aspects themselves, at least for Jupyter (the one I've
| tried out the most), are a bit too simple too. Yes it's nice to
| have alternating 'text' blocks followed by 'code' blocks but
| that's really all they are right not. I want something more
| complex. I want the code blocks shown to actually be windows to
| a full python project. Users should be able to change the code
| shown and view the larger, well structured Python code. Right
| now it's text, followed by simple code. Not much more honestly.
| As it is right now i feel Notebooks only work for really simple
| projects.
|
| If you have a complex Python project i agree the way to only
| share it is to share the Python project as is. Notebooks could
| be a wonderful explanatory wrapper to a larger project but
| right now they just aren't good at doing much more than the
| simple 'here's some data' followed by 'here's the code i used
| to process that data' and they don't even present that
| particularly well.
| paradox460 wrote:
| I'm more amused by them than anything. They're mostly just a
| reinvention of literate programming, via web or org mode or
| whatever
| marcoalopez wrote:
| Jupiter is excellent at what it is designed for. For example,
| my usual workflow is as follows: when I develop a tool or
| model, I do so in a plain Python file. I then import the file
| from the notebook to create figures, demonstrations,
| documentation and so on, resulting in an immediate document
| that my colleagues and I can easily use for discussion. It's as
| simple and effective as that. It is also a great tool for
| teaching coding to beginners. Of course, notebooks are not
| designed for code development. Also, nowadays, if you want to,
| you can open notebooks in dedicated apps.
| drnick1 wrote:
| Any reason your colleagues can't run the original Python
| script? It seems like your workflow entails going back and
| forth between script and notebook or having to make changes
| in two places to keep both versions in sync.
|
| Then there is also the issue that notebooks are too complex
| to version-control effectively.
| bragr wrote:
| >make changes in two places to keep both versions in sync.
|
| That's not how Python imports work. You can import in the
| notebook just like any other Python script.
| marcoalopez wrote:
| Not all of my colleagues know how to code, but they do know
| how to interpret results, plots and so on (I'm in science,
| by the way). In my case, I am not interested in version
| controlling the notebook; it's just for quick prototyping
| and discussing ideas. I only need to version control the
| Python file. Also, colleagues who don't code (or dislike
| coding) can easily modify parameters in the notebook and
| obtain different results immediately with no additional
| effort.
| cxr wrote:
| I'm not involved in any capacity with the development or use of
| Jupyter--I think ipynb is fundamentally flawed at a deep level,
| starting with its (I)Python roots--but this company's framing of
| their product as "the successor to Jupyter notebook" comes across
| as passive aggressive at best and misleading at worst. What is
| their relationship to Jupyter besides building a Jupyter
| alternative?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| What are some of the flaws surrounding IPython and ipynb in
| particular?
| ar_lan wrote:
| The framing of this title makes it seem like Jupyter is dead. It,
| in fact, is not.
| bee_rider wrote:
| What's these folks relationship to Jupyter? I guess they must be
| some of the really prominent Jupyter developers? Otherwise
| declaring their system the successor to such a widely used tool
| seems pretty presumptuous.
| benatkin wrote:
| Just people working at a moderately successful startup,
| frustrated that they've created a niche product.
| WD-42 wrote:
| The hubris of this self declared successor. It's not even the
| same team.
| serjester wrote:
| A lot of the comments on here are too pessimistic. Deepnote has
| had the single best jupyter interface for years now -
| unfortunately locked behind a cloud subscription though. Jupyter
| itself has been stagnant for far too long, and it's much
| appreciated there's more options coming online that have a modern
| level of polish.
|
| Marimo is great, but it's good to have competition in the space
| (especially when both projects are still owned and maintained by
| VC backed companies).
| esafak wrote:
| Which one is better, marimo or deepnote?
| kstrauser wrote:
| Oh, and it's Apache 2 licensed, so _actually_ open source and not
| just pretending for the cred.
|
| Sincerely, nice.
| zwaps wrote:
| Do people find this sort of writing appealing?
|
| For me, it's cringe to borderline painful to read.
| jonrouach wrote:
| yes!
|
| this announcement had such strong gpt-output vibe..
|
| to the "writers": pleeease don't present unedited slop to me.
| i'm a human, if you want my attention consider using your own
| voice. i don't want to read what gpt thought would "market" you
| best.
|
| but this thread did remind me of marimo so that's sweet
| slashdave wrote:
| Wouldn't the successor for Jupyter be decided by adoption? For a
| single team to self declare this seems a bit crass, no?
| bunderbunder wrote:
| I would recommend not making any career pivots to sales or
| marketing.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| Not sure if this is sarcasm, but GP has good taste and when
| marketing this stuff to developers, you need good taste.
| Otherwise it just rings hollow, and doesn't inspire
| enthusiasm.
| angiolillo wrote:
| Marketing is audience-dependent.
|
| If you are marketing to VCs then disparaging competitors and
| making grandiose claims can be effective.
|
| But when marketing to developers then constructive criticism
| and humility may be more effective.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| Lot's of notebooks floating around.
|
| I love notebooks, I use them all the time for teaching, writing
| (all of my books are written in notebooks), EDA, model
| development, and more. I've spoken at Jupytercon.
|
| Having said that, I've never played around with other notebook
| implementations (ok, I've used IPython Notebook, Jupyter Notebook
| and Lab, Google Colab, ein (emacs), Jupyter in Vscode, and
| Notebook (.py) files in Vscode).
|
| I've seen Joel's rant about notebooks, and they do have
| drawbacks.
|
| But I would rather push better programming practices (chaining
| pandas, using functions, rearranging cells) than have dependent
| cells written in the horrible piecemeal style that I see all
| around the industry.
|
| My biggest issue with notebooks is JSON. I've used Jupyter to get
| around it for years, and now many LLMs are decent at writing
| Jupyter JSON.
| dwa3592 wrote:
| as me and my co-worker used to joke, "marimo is the mclaren of
| notebooks".
| ayhanfuat wrote:
| Claiming that the number of job postings mentioning Jupyter has
| decreased, so Jupyter is no longer popular is not something a
| company in the data space should do. It is just embarrassing.
| cobertos wrote:
| And that graph they show has an offset y axis (hides the scale
| from 0 to exaggerate the "downward trend") _and_ has a non-
| uniform x axis. Each tick mark represents a different scale of
| time (1yr, 3 mos, 1 mo)
|
| Wtf
| huevosabio wrote:
| Oh wow did not catch that!
| cobertos wrote:
| Looks like the edited the graph in the article to correct
| this.
|
| Still skeptical about the data source. Analytics datasets
| always seem to undercount the most recent few data points.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Using baloney statistics to sell a product to data scientists
| is a bit like presenting a flat earth paper at an astronomy
| conference. Bold move.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| > Teams need notebooks that are reactive, collaborative, and AI-
| ready
|
| reactive: this matters, but all the alternatives have it
|
| collaborative: this matters very little in the Figma / Google
| Docs sense of collaborative in practice. It's very rare you want
| two people working on the same notebook at the same time. What
| you really want is git style version control.
|
| AI-ready: you want something as close to plain python (which is
| already as AI-ready as it gets) as possible.
|
| if you're measuring across these dimensions, I'd go with marimo.
|
| marimo is saved as plain .py files, easy to version control and
| has a reactive model.
| fxwin wrote:
| This is the first time I'm hearing about marimo and i have to
| say their landing page is excellent! Immediately makes me want
| to try it
| Equiet wrote:
| I'd argue the opposite.
|
| There is plenty of AI extensions, but the experience matters.
| The depth of integration matters. When you execute queries
| against production warehouses and you make decisions based on
| the results of AI-generated code, accuracy matters. We had our
| first demo of an AI agent running in 2 days, it took us another
| 2 years to build the infrastructure to test it, monitor it, and
| integrate it into the existing data source.
|
| You'd be surprised how many people collaborate together.
| Software engineering is solitary, collaboration happens in
| GitHub. But data analysis is collaborative. We frequently have
| 300+ people looking at the same notebook at the same time.
|
| .py never worked for data exploration. You need to mix code,
| text, charts, interactive elements. And then you need to add
| metadata: comments, references to integrations, auth secrets.
| There are notebooks that are several pages long with 0 code. We
| are building a computational medium of the future and that goes
| beyond a plaintext file, no matter how much we love the
| simplicity of a plaintext file.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| seems you completely missed the point. marimo does everything
| you're looking for in plain .py files that render as
| notebooks.
|
| https://marimo.io/blog/python-not-json
| Equiet wrote:
| We seriously considered this, but decided against this.
| While elegant for demo projects, it doesn't scale for
| serious deployments. You still need to deal with secrets,
| metadata (lots of it), backwards-compatibility, and
| extensibility (we have 23 block types today, many more to
| come).
| janalsncm wrote:
| I don't even know what AI ready means. You can press tab to
| autocomplete? Databricks has that and it's extremely annoying.
| Google Colab is slightly better.
|
| But sending my code over the wire to an LLM along with a prompt
| that says "please don't write any bugs" is not a new feature.
| GuestFAUniverse wrote:
| _standing up_ Bingo!
|
| (Anybody still familiar with "bullshit bingo"?)
| orly01 wrote:
| I don't know much about this, but I understand Project Jupyter is
| Nonprofit. If I go to "jupyter.org" I see a tab "Community" and
| another "Governance". If I go to "deepnote.com" I see "Customers"
| and "Pricing".
|
| Why would people want a standard to be controlled by a private
| company? I don't think the "Open-Sourcing" of it says enough. How
| does licensing work with formats or standards?
| j2kun wrote:
| People don't want that. This article is largely empty
| marketing. Claiming they have "the successor" is all you need
| to read before you can infer it's hot air.
| Equiet wrote:
| All standards are ultimately controlled by private companies.
| Even non-profits require funding.
|
| Open source always depended on a viable business model (of one
| or many companies) that can sustain not just the release, but
| also an ongoing maintenance of the standard.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Which private companies control Jupyter?
| ModernMech wrote:
| The problem with corporate control isn't that they require
| funding or they are private, the problem is they are
| motivated first by profit. Sometimes exclusively. So when
| "what's best" is at odds with "what's profitable", they tend
| to make the wrong choice.
|
| Take this project for instance. If one day their choice is to
| forgo all future profits, or to close the source to continue
| operating, it's very likely they will close the source to
| continue operating, rather than forgoing profits. We've seen
| it happen enough to be wary from the project structure alone.
| PostOnce wrote:
| Interestingly, even the Warez Scene has standards, and no
| commercial backing. They're enforced, too.
|
| To see the actual standards, you can search for "standard" on
| https://defacto2.net/search/file
|
| There's a free book that covers that topic:
|
| https://punctumbooks.com/titles/warez-the-infrastructure-
| and...
| jrajav wrote:
| Not quite a counterexample, since piracy derives all of its
| value from commercial works, and those who want access to
| them.
| simonw wrote:
| Way to undermine an interesting product launch through poorly
| chosen language:
|
| > Let's be frank the single-player notebook has felt outdated for
| a while now. We're open-sourcing its successor. Jupyter belongs
| in the hall of great ideas -- alongside "Hello, world." and "View
| Source."
|
| If you're trying to reach out to the Python community this is
| _not_ the way to do it. Completely unnecessary hostile language
| there! Have some respect.
|
| My advice to Deepnote is to scrap this launch announcement
| (ideally with an apology) and try again. They've built something
| genuinely useful and interesting but it's going go get a lot less
| attention than it deserves if they introduce the open source
| version to the world like this.
| aj_hackman wrote:
| TIL "Hello world!" has been put out to pasture.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Who needs Hello World when you can have an LLM implement an
| entire number guessing game for you?
| Panoramix wrote:
| For when the LLM completely screws up the code as it does
| whacko_quacko wrote:
| Yes. This wording just misses the mark and sounds super tone
| deaf
|
| Not sure that an apology is necessary though. Some
| overconfident marketing person tried something, and it failed.
| That's what happens if you try stuff. They should just try
| harder next time
| Equiet wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback Simon!
| gowld wrote:
| Did you... read it?
| coldtea wrote:
| Apparently they're continuing the tone-deaf announcement
| with tone-deaf responses to feedback.
| misnome wrote:
| "Just post through it" is a tried and true tactic!
| matsemann wrote:
| They did edit the post..
| flexagoon wrote:
| Why is "View source" listed here as if it's some outdated
| feature of the past?
| j2kun wrote:
| Probably an AI wrote large parts of this press release.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| That's no excuse. Someone shipped it (and ostensibly read
| it).
| dennisy wrote:
| 100%, you can feel this is GPT5 style.
| alexchantavy wrote:
| At least they did a s/--/-/ in the copy
| swyx wrote:
| it is since Javascript compilers and minification became a
| thing
| andy99 wrote:
| I saw this on LinkedIn earlier and literally closed it after "
| Let's be frank the single-player notebook has felt outdated for
| a while now"
|
| I think it must be messaging for "leadership" as opposed to
| practitioners, there are lots of real pain points but they
| don't seem to be mentioning them
| 3rodents wrote:
| it's what happens when people use LLMs to write their posts.
| Rubbishing Jupyter is an obvious choice if you're a machine
| writing a compelling post. Rubbishing Jupyter if you're a human
| being with a stake in the space is a terrible choice.
|
| My constructive advice for deepnote: if you don't have
| something to say from the heart, don't ask an LLM to generate
| something for you. Write less, not more. For a post this
| important, an LLM is a terrible choice.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| I do not often make a point after upvoting but instead of
| writing more or less the same: this ^. If not for the open
| source, I would have closed the the page after that blurb
| thinking something is off and I do not need it.
| al_borland wrote:
| When we stand on the shoulders of giants, we don't do so to
| dump on them.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _If you 're trying to reach out to the Python community this
| is not the way to do it. Completely unnecessary hostile
| language there! Have some respect._
|
| The note sounds as written by some manager/marketing guy that
| has 20 years to touch a line of code...
|
| For sure it put my off even checking what their shit is (from
| initially interested upon seeing the HN post).
| a2128 wrote:
| The whole article felt very dishonest and frankly quite rude
| towards Jupyter. Self-declaring themselves to be the successor
| to a project that's still alive and that they seemingly have
| absolutely no legitimate claim to, and then going on to bash it
| by saying it's dying because job postings are decreasing and
| commits are decreasing, the latter point is especially
| dishonest considering Jupyter is already quite complete and
| fully featured so maybe it doesn't need constant daily commits?
|
| Maybe they should focus less on bashing Jupyter and more of
| showing what's good about them, for example they stated
| multiple times that Jupyter is messy JSON but they never showed
| off their own format... Just some vague hand-wavy "perfect for
| AI!"
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| Simple explanation, they used AI as a voice for their writing
| instead of using it as a tool for writing in their own voice.
|
| LLMs are good to proofread, check your tone, generate ideas,
| etc.
|
| Letting them take over your connection with an audience or be a
| substitute for gut checks or taste is not helping anyone.
| 9029 wrote:
| Seeing such pivotal announcement be poorly vetted slop
| doesn't really inspire confidence in the quality of their
| product.
| knlb wrote:
| The whole post feels like it was edited/modified by ChatGPT;
| `What we opened -- in English, not a changelog`, `Why it
| matters (no fluff):`, `We are big believers in notebooks --
| full stop` are patterns that always make me feel like an LLM
| wrote it (sentence followed by a marketing qualifier).
|
| I really liked Deepnote the product when I last used it, but
| the post definitely feels off.
| barrrrald wrote:
| I don't think an LLM wrote it; this has been their brand
| voice for a long time...
| carimura wrote:
| Been thinking about this lately because I find my writing
| style is a little bit like annoying slightly sycophantic
| overly-hyphenated-with-an-emdash-here-and-there LLMs. Since
| LLMs are trained on the Internet, wouldn't some portion of
| posts that fall in the middle of the "voice bell curve"
| always sound like LLMs and thus be open to this critique even
| when they are 100% human written?
| hyperbovine wrote:
| Completely agree. I don't know anyone who isn't financially
| incentivized to see the Jupyter project fail who feels this way
| about Jupyter. This whole post stinks of "we're losing to
| Jupyter so let's throw up a ridiculous Hail Mary".
| etrvic wrote:
| I don't know if I'm missing something here, but I think they
| rephrased the article, or at least the quoted sentence is not
| there anymore.
|
| Edit: I checked with wayback machine and they definitely
| modified the article.
| jahewson wrote:
| It reads like a sales call where they're getting customer
| pushback and responding with something quantitative - not a
| good opener at all, especially for this audience. The GPT tone
| pushes it over the edge.
|
| What they built looks great and I don't disagree with their
| take in substance, but you get _one chance_ to make your open
| source announcement good - don't blow it like this.
| roadside_picnic wrote:
| > an interesting product launch
|
| This looks less like an "interesting" product, and more like a
| case of pivoting a commercial product that isn't making enough
| money into an open source one in the hope of at least gaining
| some credibility from all that work as well as undercutting the
| competition.
|
| > They've built something genuinely useful and interesting
|
| This core product has been around for years now. If it was that
| interesting and useful, more people would have likely _paid_
| for the original offering.
|
| I would certainly recommend taking this 'release' with a touch
| more cynicism.
| sixhobbits wrote:
| Haha I've asked LLMs to avoid fluff in a prompt and gotten
| exactly a heading like that one wkth "(no fluff)" before.
|
| Otherwise I've followed DeepNote since they started. I agree with
| other comments that it's icky to announce yourself as a successor
| to someone else's project, but always nice to have more options
| for open source
| hsaliak wrote:
| Can someone clarify how deepnote has the authority to declare the
| "successor" of Jupyter?
| fxwin wrote:
| >Meanwhile, the market is voting with its feet. Across the
| Fortune 1000, job postings that mention and require Jupyter
| knowledge are down sharply; the most recent month was deep in the
| red YTD.
|
| This is a joke, right?
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| I'm pretty confused why a company would waste such an important
| announcement / milestone with a clearly llm-generated blog post.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Might wanna spell-check the post if you want any credibility on
| your claim:
|
| > worfklows
|
| Observable is already open-sourced and well-respected. Bold and
| ridiculous to claim your random product is "the successor" of a
| well-known project, without any obvious relationship to the
| founders/maintainers of the thing you claim to be aping.
| yandie wrote:
| What's wrong with `workflows` - out of curiosity?
|
| Also, AFAIK, Observable is only JS - this is a Python notebook
| solution that we are talking here.
|
| I'm just an observer - their claim of being successor to
| Jupyter is definitely hyperbole.
| gus_massa wrote:
| There is an extra F "worFkflows". I don't mind it, but they
| should fix it anyway.
| Equiet wrote:
| I'm Jakub, CEO of Deepnote.
|
| Didn't expect to see this trending here! We worked hard to
| execute on our vision of a data notebook and I'm glad we finally
| got a chance to open source it. We stand on the shoulders of
| giants. AMA!
| chrisra wrote:
| Which LLM was used to generate that post?
| misnome wrote:
| And do you have a marketing team to fire, or is it just the
| LLM?
| dizlexic wrote:
| This is an ad.
| martinky24 wrote:
| It's telling that Wolfram / Mathemetica doesn't even come up in a
| blog post like this, as the inventors of "the notebook". Jupyter
| took the concept to a whole new level, but the concept did
| originate in Mathematica 30 years ago!
| paradox460 wrote:
| The concept of literate programming, text interspersed with
| code, is older. Knuth mostly invented it, writing TeX, among
| other things, in it. Org mode even let you evaluate code blocks
| and store the output, or use it in future blocks.
| wosined wrote:
| The article reads as if generated by AI. Lol
| sampton wrote:
| Jupyter use is declining because coding agents got really good.
| Multiplayer mode is not going to save it.
| daft_pink wrote:
| You claim it's a successor, but is everyone really on board with
| that? I love jupyter, but generally feel like having to run a
| server is the downside.
|
| The nice thing about jupyter notebooks is that you can run them
| inside vscode without an explicit server, but I like to just use
| %% so that I can run it in zed and vs code and it's just a python
| file that doesn't need conversion.
| seg_lol wrote:
| The successor to Jupyter notebook is Marimo, https://marimo.io/
| because they are pure code, not code in json. First class
| everywhere.
| yandie wrote:
| I'm confused. I checked out the repo and I don't think the
| notebook itself - the equivalent of Jupyter is open source yet:
|
| https://github.com/deepnote/deepnote/
|
| What's the equivalent of `jupyerlab run`?
|
| > You'll soon be able to:
|
| > Take the UI you're used to from Deepnote Cloud and run it
| locally > Edit notebooks with a local AI agent > Bring your own
| keys for AI services > Run your own compute
| paradox460 wrote:
| Hasn't LiveBook had multiplayer editing for a few years now?
| bgwalter wrote:
| If the job postings for Jupyter go down, what exactly will happen
| to an "AI"-first replacement when "AI" weariness is rising
| sharply?
|
| "AI" has achieved what seemed impossible in 2019: It makes people
| hate all tech and gets them away from computers.
| nice_byte wrote:
| How is this a "successor"? It's not tied to the Jupyter project
| in any way? Looks like a scummy ad for some subpar aislop
| product?
| jmount wrote:
| Very few objections to Jupyter that are not addressed by
| `nbconvert`.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| I love how opensourcing it basically in today's world is a
| precursor to we're sunsetting it.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > Across the Fortune 1000, job postings that mention and require
| Jupyter knowledge are down sharply
|
| The obvious question is whether Jupyter is being replaced in
| those postings, whether those types of jobs are proportionally
| rarer, or whether the whole market is simply hiring less.
|
| Jupyter is still best in class and I can think of a few other
| explanations for this stat.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-04 23:01 UTC)