Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work?
Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
It's an old trick first called out in The Dilbert Principle that you get promoted by being associated with sexy sounding projects, the best case is a sexy sounding project that has vague objectives.
Given the blurb above it sounds like there is very little substance to this and lots of style. Expect it to be sunset or fade into obscurity in 3-5 years.
EDIT: For context their stated mission is > GitHub Next investigates the future of software development. We explore things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and technologies that will change our craft. New approaches to building healthy, productive software engineering teams.
Notice the lack of anything that will actually be produced, key words that you are dealing with BS is "explore", "approaches", and "change our craft" without any details on what any of that means. If they were producing or doing something they'd say that. As is it's meaningless marketing drivel that could translate better as "We've made up a fake job to play with cool tech, write ill-informed meaningless blog posts about what the next cool thing everyone should do is. We're also light on technical skills so we are going to focus on teams and projects not actual tech"
I don't begrudge them the fact they weaseled their way into this job good for them, but I don't expect much, and If I am wrong and these are actually super smart talented individuals that finally got the freedom to make something happen then I apologize for my dismissiveness. That being said when companies get acquired by MS they don't tend to be known for their innovation and ground breaking research going forward.
I'm seeing a pretty good description:
" GitHub Next investigates the future of software development. We explore things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and technologies that will change our craft. New approaches to building healthy, productive software engineering teams. "
I've read the whole page and I'm not sure what it is. I suspect it's a think tank, but I'm not certain.
Their team consists of engineers and researchers.
This is slightly worrying if this is the direction Github are heading.
There is no precedent on if a computer reading your code or looking at the image is fair-use or not.
I've heard people saying this since the mid-70's.
I lump it into the same trash bin with flying cars and orbiting space hotels, and "90 minutes from New York to Paris — undersea by rail." Things envisioned by artists that will never happen in my lifetime, or yours.
Heads up, that page has no `<title>` tag so the browser tab is `githubnext.com/`. That is a _VERY_ minor nit, but still an SEO ding (you're github, that doesn't matter much), and a rough edge that could be buffed out.
Bonus points for adding a favicon too. :)
Well, the title is precisely the only mandatory element in a valid HTML5 document, even if forgetting it seems harmless.
Edit with details from https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/document-metad...
> Note: The title element is a required child in most situations, but when a higher-level protocol provides title information, e.g. in the Subject line of an e-mail when HTML is used as an e-mail authoring format, the title element can be omitted.
From https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/document-metad...
> If it's reasonable for the Document to have no title, then the title element is probably not required. See the head element's content model for a description of when the element is required.
So strictly speaking, if it's meant to be used as a traditional web page, you should really have it (obviously), but it's not strictly required.
$ dig githubnext.com
; <<>> DiG 9.11.3-1ubuntu1.17-Ubuntu <<>> githubnext.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 29398
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 65494
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;githubnext.com. IN A
;; Query time: 1458 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.53#53(127.0.0.53)
;; WHEN: Fri Aug 26 17:20:13 CEST 2022
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 43I want to know all the callers and callees of every function. This shouldn't be too hard, we already have find references via LSP.
Turning this into a graph would make it significantly easier to manage the entry and exit points of a code base and inform architecture decisions, refactors, type checking, hot paths etc.
The AST module was super handy as you'd expect. The script would optionally take some filters to reduce the size of the generated graph, and then it sent all the info to Graphiz (it emitted DOT, too, so it could be version controlled!!)
It was extremely fun, highly recommended.
Why not deploy as next.github.com subdomain?
Also, various boring realities around SSL termination made deployment difficult in a github.com domain. This was the expedient solution. Not phishing!
Yesterday I tried to use Datadog's Github integration for stacktraces and it asked me for "access Github on my behalf".
It's been the same since the beginning of Github - they leave integrators with no better options, and users with an ambiguous UI dialog / docs that downplay the scope being granted.
Sooooo maybe fix your own stuff before making such grandiose claims?
They also provide a direct git integration, which as far as I can tell just is a reduced version of the GitHub one, with a featureset that seems reasonable if they only have the pure git data.
If you’re interested, check out https://codeapprove.com
> We moved to https://github.com/githubnext!
https://github.com/githubocto/flat still using old name
1. Code editor is full of telemetry and costs money, only accessible over the internet.
2. Code regressing into lots of boilerplate and automatically copied stack overflow answers by copilot, programmers using less critical thinking skills.
I don't trust Microsoft either.
By enabling increased complexity (via Language Server Protocol, Copilot, and even GitHub itself) devs get locked-in to the MS ecosystem. It reminds me of Braess's paradox ("adding one or more roads to a road network can slow down overall traffic flow through it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox ).
Increasing our ability to generate (but not comprehend) complex systems is also intrinsically dangerous (beyond the "rent seeking" of MS) because complexity itself is a kind of cost or overhead. This is not to say that the more complex system cannot result in efficiency gains that outweigh the cost to maintain that complexity. (If that were true there would be no multicellular life, eh?) It means complexity should be carefully justified in terms of economic/engineering considerations.
The dependency between the modules seems like a nice addition to me. I don't think CodeScene has that one. Can't wait to try this on our bigger projects.
I never found a really good way to visualize large codebases and the dependencies between the modules, does somebody have something for this?
