I had the idea 2 years ago, but starting building in earnest 2 months ago. Spending all my time on it now, minus 3 or 4 days per week of earning money. Currently looking for a GTM/sales-oriented cofounder in NL.
I had the idea 2 years ago, but starting building in earnest 2 months ago. Spending all my time on it now, minus 3 or 4 days per week of earning money. Currently looking for a GTM/sales-oriented cofounder in NL.
How much we're willing to pay is a whole other question. I feel like this is the kind of thing that Cursor already does by itself but it's just not releasing a user-readable output of it.
It won't likely be a subscription thing, but one off payments per repo makes sense, and there should be some kind of satisfaction guarantee or say, charge to have the output in a human readable format.
Monorepos are also a pain. On the front end, they sometimes share design. On BE they may share databases. It would be cool to break it down into DDD-style domains if applicable or propose things like anti corruption layers. More often it's like a "pacific ocean meets atlantic ocean" kind of thing, where you can tell there's a difference in the way things are done, but it's not entirely clear where the border is. This would probably be worth a lot more.
To a much lesser extent, an architectural copilot would also make sense. On the front end, we have a lot of redundant components. Say a button might be PrimaryButton, but the same thing is GreenButton or FilledNoOutlineButton by other devs. We tried documenting this which just ended up being a waste of 1 week because nobody read the doc. It's worse with complex components like TwoButtonModal vs TwoButtonModalWithClose. And what happens is code is always built in parallel; people don't realize that the designer's new style applies to both teams so you get two people building the same components at the same time. Not a major problem, but I think this is worth a few cents every PR.
Ultimately it's hard to gauge. Like Copilot underdelivered, Cursor overdelivers, and yet both essentially do the same thing. I guess the amount we're willing to pay is just vibe-based.
How do you deal with different kinds of groupings and connections? For example, some things could be connected because they are “integrations”, or because they deal with notifications, or because they’re available only in the enterprise plan. Not all related things are related in the same way.
Note that I'm not always a CTO in the strictest sense of the word, I like doing complex technical challenges with software companies and sometimes just lead a complex project like implementing ISO 27001 or re-packaging a software suite for on-prem deployment.
I want to build a local company in my city of Utrecht, primarily on-site. That gives me the most energy and fun and is something that I want to optimize for.
Edit: It would be great if you could set the context and AI would generate it. It would make as an amazing addition to a standard Readme.
Further, at one level it could show endpoints and function signatures with parameters and how the argument usually looks as a value.
Which brings up another point, why doesn't Cursor or others allow me to say, "I'm in debug mode, show me if a value is dissimilar the values you normally get."
some suggestions:
* have ways for multiple views and/or start-points and/or both up/down directions. e.g. hierachy vs reason/effect vs dependence vs whatever-else. Then think about animating those in time
* heat-map over the views, as e.g. churn(changes)-in-time, or usage(number of dependents), etc
* requirements engineering kind-of-view ~ may overlap with dependency (both directions!) but with explicit requirements/assumptions tied to respective stakeholders. Though this may need links to/from JIRA and similar issue-trackers etc
* check Wardley maps - yet another view, starting from customer/stakeholder/vendor-points. Also may move in time. It may need user decision on which things are big/separate-enough to surface on that view - sometimes a single script is on-par with whole subsystem
* future maybe - growing above into zoomable per-project thing (more proj.mngmnt than just code, incl. related e-mails etc) - described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43060108
* probably more.. will add if something else dawns on me
have fun!
p.s. fractional CTO? i am looking that way too..
I've wanted to work with code thus, but it becomes a problem in that things are only really readable/relatable in single-screen chunks, and when one tries to show more than is accurately related on a single screen it becomes an unreadable, confusing, blurry mess.
Screengrab?
Version control could reliably track movement between files, we could identify copy and paste (and prompt when refactoring), and code coverage changes would be accurate.
3+ years ago i landed as architect onto a working system having 300Kloc js codebase across 20+ repos, plus other ~100 unused ones with unknown Mlocs in them, running over 25+ containers in 2 datacenters.. without neither good architectural diagram nor deployment diagram nor runtime flow diagram... took me quite some months to build some mental image of which is what and where and why. It was event-sourcing engine so event-flows mapping from parsing the source was doable (few weeks, python+esprima+graphviz), but all else... nope.
Anyway, do ping me if you feel like it, any time.
----
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43161332 - subimage.io
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42521769 - gitdiagram.com
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976467 (manned service?)
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41393458 - codeviz.ai
I think you should check out the Light Table kickstarter[0] which originally had a similar premise to yours, and raised several hundred thousand dollars. I personally put in $50 to be in the beta, and that was almost 15 years ago.
I think you would get a lot of takers if you could make a convincing demo.
[0] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ibdknox/light-table
haystack editor is a neat canvas based IDE
codesee recently got acquired by GitKraken (wish they'd sell individual licenses for function maps rather than only for enterprise)
Sometimes I wish I could code within an obsidan.MD canvas
I think a lot of developers generally want to code on a useful node graph IDE ---- the Gource time travel idea is interesting!
Would love to see your idea pulled off! I'm rooting for you