upvote

points

by mjr0015 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby simonw6 hours ago|
next
[-]
41,964 commits is a lot more than "a month of greenfield work".

https://tools.simonwillison.net/github-repo-stats?repo=OpenC...

reply
upvoteby sdevonoes2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Didn’t we learn anything from the past? Using loc or number of commits or github stars to measure success or productivity is so backwards. It seems everyone on the AI wagon is either young (and so they don’t know our history) or simply forgot about all the good practices in software engineering
reply
upvoteby krater2322 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
My bashscript can do that in some hours. The git repo contains no working software after that, but when that is what you want to meassure...
reply
upvoteby mjr005 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> 41,964 commits is a lot more than "a month of greenfield work".

I meant a month for the initial release, not current state.

Regardless, much like lines of code, number of commits is not a good metric, not even as a proxy, for how much "work" was actually done. Quickly browsing there are plenty[0] of[1] really[2] small[3] commits[4]. Agentic coding naturally optimizes for small commits because that's what the process is meant to do, but it doesn't mean that more work is being done, or that the work is effective. If anything, looking at the changelog[5] OpenClaw feels like a directionless dumpster fire right now. I would expect a lot more from a project if it had multiple people working on it for 5 years, pre-AI.

[0] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/e43ae8e8cd1ffc07...

[1] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/377c69773f0a1b8e...

[2] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/ffafa9008da249a0...

[3] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/506b0bbaad312454...

[4] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/512f777099eb19df...

[5] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md

reply
upvoteby simonw4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's why my original comment said:

> (Whether or not you trust the quality of the software you can't deny the impact it had in such a short time. It defined a new category of software.)

I brought up OpenClaw here because the challenge was:

> we still have no companies compressing 10 years into 1 year thus exploding past all the incumbents who don't "get it".

reply
upvoteby timr5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Seriously? Commit count is right up there with lines of code as a classically dumb measurement of productivity.
reply
upvoteby simonw4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure, but it's still a good counter to "a month of work".
reply
upvoteby timr4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No it isn't. There's basically no upper bound on the number of commits an LLM can generate. If the LLM takes 10,000 commits to do what a human would do in 10, then the comparison is meaningless.

I don't know anything about the code quality of OpenClaw, but telling me the number of commits tells me precisely nothing of use.

reply
upvoteby simonw24 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
OK, now do that for 369,293 stars, 76,193 forks, 138 releases and 2,133 contributors.

I expect there is no number I could bring up here that won't be instantly shot down as telling "precisely nothing". My mistake for bringing up any numbers at all.

OpenClaw is a good example of a completely new project written using coding agents that made a significant impression on the world and would not have been built without them.

I'm surprised this is a hill I have to die on, but there we are.

(I'm not even a user of OpenClaw! I don't think it's secure or safe enough to use in my own life.)

reply
upvoteby sdevonoes2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It isn’t man. Anyone can easily split a single good commit into 10 just to inflate the numbers. C’mon, this is 101 git
reply
upvoteby thunky15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
You're framing it like the only barrier to writing wildly successful money printing software is software development skills.

If that were true, all of these anti-AI greybeards who have been in the game for 30 years would all own their own jets.

reply