Show HN: Turn any workflow diagram into compilable, running and stateful code

1. yeah this is nice, making it easier to generate workflows is always good. i think the challenge is always versioning and proper error handling - if the diagram the user sends in doesnt properly model the work done, then you're SOL.

2. (sorry to bring it up but have to ask) how does Diagrid/Dapr compare to Temporal? i browsed your docs but there wasn't much that came up. is Dapr strictly dag based?

This is really cool as far as the application goes, but I do have a question on how you plan to compete/differentiate, if at all. I fed the same image to one of the flagship LLMs and was able to generate, more or less, the same dapr scaffold. You might probably be able to fine tune towards dapr use case better, but if one of the flagship models that people already use is going to come close, then it becomes a hard sell.

I suppose it's also a general question about the many new AI applications in the market, because these flagship models are getting really good by the day, and seem to be eating up into each and every of those use cases.

Why generating code ?

Some feedback: show example input & output without requiring me to create an account.

Looks interesting, best of luck!

This. There's a few example diagrams but I need an account to see the output of those example diagrams? No thanks.

This is cool. I remember not too long ago I had a professor telling me that this was essentially the future of software engineering and that soon we won't be writing code as we know it today. I believed him, I just didn't think we'd be seeing it here so soon.

Any plans to create systems that allow this to be embedded in existing code bases? It'd be neat to be able to sketch out new systems that your tool could generate code for that seamlessly hooks into an existing system's architecture, especially if it could have a UX similar to how copilot or cursor behave in how they're directly inline with the code.

This reminds me of the UML/RUP era from the early 2000s.... Is that an attempt to revive or even resurrect UML diagrams and Rational Unified Process blending it with AI? I would bet it's all dead forever. I'm skeptical about diagram-driven development making a comeback. In my experience, developers today prefer more agile, code-first approaches because requirements change rapidly and maintaining diagram-code synchronization is an unbearable challenge.

Even worse, you have to download a .zip containing the output.

I'm probably a bit too trusting, but holy hell does that still give a terrible first impression when we have in-browser solutions available to show code demos.

Code-first is kinda moving towards prompt-first. A diagram is just another way to prompt, so I can see this making a comeback, esp. with AI taking over more and more code.

If it weren't for the ambiguity of prompts and nondeterministic nature of the model.

I believe in UML usefulness as a whiteboard/blackboard language. A fun way to explain what you need or what you imagine to be a good architecture, but that's all, it's a drafting tool. But then, why not using it as a communication tool ? You would draft something on the board, the LLM would generate the program. Sometimes it is simpler to draw 5 rectangles, name then and show their relationships in UML class modeling than to explain it textually.

I’m all in for diagrams in discussing software! When there is no whiteboard, I literally draw in the air to explain my point. However, doing real, orthodox UML/BPMN requires everyone to understand the official notation, the difference e.g. between an „association“ and a „message flow“ (and then the differences between UML 1.4 and 2.0) etc. Do people really work in environments where all stakeholders have that kind of knowledge? Big corps I could imagine, probably where heavy machinery is involved. Aside from those „we build a cruise ship“ megaprojects I have the impression that people say UML and mean the much more approachable „squares connected by diamonds and labeled arrows“-diagrams.

Wondering how no-code tools like this handle those discrepancies between the super-detailed specs and the real world diagrams

Set the seed.

Reply to post: "any"?

[0] I accept large checks for allowing setting seeds on-prem.

To me that homepage feels like when you start a new 8-part TV show by accidentally watching episode 6.

I see some thing I recognize, diagrams, but nothing else makes sense.