Launch HN: CodeViz (YC S24) – Visual maps of your codebase in VS Code
89 comments
Congratulations on the launch - this looks great and I've been waiting for years for something like this! As a researcher who mostly uses Python, and explores/navigates a large number of repos for a short time, often written by other researchers not necessarily trained in software best practices, I was always frustrated (and surprised) that there was no VS Code extension or tool that gave me a quick overview/visualization to get a high level gist of different modules and code/data flow!
I tried this with a bunch of small open-source repos and it works great! I imagine using LLM might be a hard no for some people/enterprises - any plans to use stand-alone licenses with small local models? It seems like for what LLM is doing here (if I understand it right, help label the modules in natural language and perhaps help organize them into this hierarchy/modules) you don't necessarily need a SoTA model, right?
Also, this could be coming from LLMs, but I see that the visualizations are more biased towards terminology used in web-dev? (for example, one of my robot related repo was organized into front-end, back-end, etc. with I guess is kinda right but not exactly lol). It would be nice to see an interactive visualization where I can iterate on the initial viz with information I know, e.g., I drag and drop a module or rename it and then you probably do another pass with this feedback and LLMs and update my overall visualization with more domain specific labels and partitions?
Edit: Exploring CodeViz on a few more repos, and it seems like you have a set of hardcoded labels for the highest hierarchy in the architecture diagram? (so far, I've only seen Users, Databases, Backend, Frontend, and Shared Components). I am guessing this is something passed on in the prompts? It'll be nice to allow user to define their own set of labels/partitions at one or more levels and then try to create an architecture visualization that fits into these labels/constraints (although I am guessing at some point you have to be wary of hallucinations?)
I tried this with a bunch of small open-source repos and it works great! I imagine using LLM might be a hard no for some people/enterprises - any plans to use stand-alone licenses with small local models? It seems like for what LLM is doing here (if I understand it right, help label the modules in natural language and perhaps help organize them into this hierarchy/modules) you don't necessarily need a SoTA model, right?
Also, this could be coming from LLMs, but I see that the visualizations are more biased towards terminology used in web-dev? (for example, one of my robot related repo was organized into front-end, back-end, etc. with I guess is kinda right but not exactly lol). It would be nice to see an interactive visualization where I can iterate on the initial viz with information I know, e.g., I drag and drop a module or rename it and then you probably do another pass with this feedback and LLMs and update my overall visualization with more domain specific labels and partitions?
Edit: Exploring CodeViz on a few more repos, and it seems like you have a set of hardcoded labels for the highest hierarchy in the architecture diagram? (so far, I've only seen Users, Databases, Backend, Frontend, and Shared Components). I am guessing this is something passed on in the prompts? It'll be nice to allow user to define their own set of labels/partitions at one or more levels and then try to create an architecture visualization that fits into these labels/constraints (although I am guessing at some point you have to be wary of hallucinations?)
Re: Edit
The top level categorizations are indeed fixed, however the nodes themselves can be arbitrary. We've found this helps with grouping and organization while still allowing for the flexibility required to accommodate different systems. I'm curious, are there any categories missing here that could be added?
Currently, we categorize by: Frontend (UI/UX elements), Backend (API/Business/Data Access), DB(persisting storage), External Services (Backends maintained outside codebase), Shared Components (internally maintained libraries and helpers)
The top level categorizations are indeed fixed, however the nodes themselves can be arbitrary. We've found this helps with grouping and organization while still allowing for the flexibility required to accommodate different systems. I'm curious, are there any categories missing here that could be added?
Currently, we categorize by: Frontend (UI/UX elements), Backend (API/Business/Data Access), DB(persisting storage), External Services (Backends maintained outside codebase), Shared Components (internally maintained libraries and helpers)
I don’t think I’d draw a diagram by hand with an explicit “frontend” label, I think I’d most likely leave it without a label. If I had to choose I would leave it labeled as “UI”.
That makes sense, we'll make this change!
I like this perspective. I am just starting to dip my toes into software development and one thing I love about the industry as a whole is that it allows for and often encourages new ways of doing a thing, which in turn promotes new ways of thinking about thing. So many industries I interact with are stuck in a "that's the way it's always been done" loop and it is maddening, sometimes.
We'd love to use local models and have played around with them a bit. Exactly right about the labeling - we didn't stick with local models because 3.5 sonnet is exceptionally good at finding niche architecture labels and merging similar modules (since code analysis is chunked). Copilot tools are becoming very popular, so companies are getting less strict around LLMs and code, but ultimately we do think everyone is better off if CodeViz is self-contained.
There is some hard coded bias for web dev. Diagram modification is definitely high on our todo, and we've been finding ways to reduce pre-defined structure in our prompts to LLMs so they work with broader tech stacks. When we sell licenses to teams, we do some manual checks for accuracy and detail, which helps us improve the public extension.
What's the name of the robotics repo? And any preference for modifying the diagram directly vs instructing changes by text?
There is some hard coded bias for web dev. Diagram modification is definitely high on our todo, and we've been finding ways to reduce pre-defined structure in our prompts to LLMs so they work with broader tech stacks. When we sell licenses to teams, we do some manual checks for accuracy and detail, which helps us improve the public extension.
What's the name of the robotics repo? And any preference for modifying the diagram directly vs instructing changes by text?
This is cool but it is way to expensive and the free version is not that useful.
Tried it on the github.com/pulumi/pulumi codebase and I get 5 blocks and that's it. Seems nice but I'm not going to pay 20 bucks a month to view one layer deeper.
Tried it on the github.com/pulumi/pulumi codebase and I get 5 blocks and that's it. Seems nice but I'm not going to pay 20 bucks a month to view one layer deeper.
Appreciate the honest feedback! We're working hard to improve CodeViz, please let me know if there are any features you'd love to see.
I cloned pulumi and exported both layers of the CodeViz diagrams into mermaid format: https://github.com/EdisonLabs-Inc/Pulumi-Diagrams/tree/main. I'm not familiar with the repo so let me know if anything looks off. Hope you find these useful!
I cloned pulumi and exported both layers of the CodeViz diagrams into mermaid format: https://github.com/EdisonLabs-Inc/Pulumi-Diagrams/tree/main. I'm not familiar with the repo so let me know if anything looks off. Hope you find these useful!
Thanks, that is really cool, especially when ramping up on a code base. The labeling is mostly pretty good (though I'd not call some stuff "backend" but who can blame it for not knowing). I still think it might be too expensive as is but if I were using this to generate mermaids for everyone in my company a one time fee of 20 might be justified (you often dont need this continuously)
Hi and congrats on the launch! I run a company that also does software diagrams and we've often been posed the question of generating automated diagrams. We've never done so, primarily because I've never found auto-generated diagrams helpful yet. Code dependency graphs have existed for a generation now and I've just never seen one referenced by anyone. I wonder if things have changed now with LLMs.
The examples in your youtube video look good. I'm curious how they're generated. "We were surprised to find that a small fraction of code can generate a very accurate representation of the system." is a surprising statement to me. It's not been my experience that the code can reveal an accurate representation of human-understandable architecture beyond the call graph. The backend system generated from OpenHands (in your video) also looks pretty different from their own architecture diagram in their README: https://github.com/All-Hands-AI/OpenHands/tree/main/openhand... . How do you reconcile what an LLM says an architecture looks like with what maintainers prescribe? Is there a way to give feedback to it? (similar to pthangeda's comment on customization)
I wish there was a way to point this at a repo to test its efficacy. Though I understand that that'd be prohibitively expensive to do for free on the landing page.
I'm also curious how you guys distinguish yourself from https://docs.codesee.io/docs/review-maps-for-visual-studio-c... . They tried this for a few years but shut down recently (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shaneak_update-codesee-has-be...)
The examples in your youtube video look good. I'm curious how they're generated. "We were surprised to find that a small fraction of code can generate a very accurate representation of the system." is a surprising statement to me. It's not been my experience that the code can reveal an accurate representation of human-understandable architecture beyond the call graph. The backend system generated from OpenHands (in your video) also looks pretty different from their own architecture diagram in their README: https://github.com/All-Hands-AI/OpenHands/tree/main/openhand... . How do you reconcile what an LLM says an architecture looks like with what maintainers prescribe? Is there a way to give feedback to it? (similar to pthangeda's comment on customization)
I wish there was a way to point this at a repo to test its efficacy. Though I understand that that'd be prohibitively expensive to do for free on the landing page.
I'm also curious how you guys distinguish yourself from https://docs.codesee.io/docs/review-maps-for-visual-studio-c... . They tried this for a few years but shut down recently (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shaneak_update-codesee-has-be...)
Great points/questions. I suspect that information relevant to codebase architectures follows the 80/20 principle. For example, a router and index file in a React App will usually give you around 80% of what's needed to infer high level container info.
In terms of generating architecture diagrams, we follow the c4 model, with top level nodes defined as separately deployable units of software, and lower level component nodes being a set of functions wrapped behind a common interface. As the product develops, we'd like to include a way for feedback/fine tuning, but ideally the definition of an architecture diagram would be rigorous enough that there is no ambiguity, this is what we're aiming for. If you'd like to try it out on a specific repo, you can always use our extension for further analysis.
You're right to notice the similarity with CodeSee. Ultimately we're looking to focus on improving the developer experience without needing to leave the IDE. The idea is that CodeViz can replace or augment search and directory tree by providing a more intuitive interface for navigation!
In terms of generating architecture diagrams, we follow the c4 model, with top level nodes defined as separately deployable units of software, and lower level component nodes being a set of functions wrapped behind a common interface. As the product develops, we'd like to include a way for feedback/fine tuning, but ideally the definition of an architecture diagram would be rigorous enough that there is no ambiguity, this is what we're aiming for. If you'd like to try it out on a specific repo, you can always use our extension for further analysis.
You're right to notice the similarity with CodeSee. Ultimately we're looking to focus on improving the developer experience without needing to leave the IDE. The idea is that CodeViz can replace or augment search and directory tree by providing a more intuitive interface for navigation!
> If you'd like to try it out on a specific repo, you can always use our extension for further analysis.
VSCode extension marketplace doesn't have the best security rails or reputation for security, and with this being closed source, just personally, installing and running it on my machine isn't something I'm comfortable doing.
> The idea is that CodeViz can replace or augment search and directory tree by providing a more intuitive interface for navigation!
That to me is a different goal than the one in your post (maybe it's just phrasing or I didn't understand the OP correctly), and is something I'd be excited to have!
> ideally the definition of an architecture diagram would be rigorous enough that there is no ambiguity
Rigor is a big "if" in software ;). See: UML's attempt. C4 is some very loose guidelines. IIRC, a big part of its attraction is the lack of rigor/formal standards.
Anyway, best of luck! Feel free to reach out if you'd like to chat diagrams
VSCode extension marketplace doesn't have the best security rails or reputation for security, and with this being closed source, just personally, installing and running it on my machine isn't something I'm comfortable doing.
> The idea is that CodeViz can replace or augment search and directory tree by providing a more intuitive interface for navigation!
That to me is a different goal than the one in your post (maybe it's just phrasing or I didn't understand the OP correctly), and is something I'd be excited to have!
> ideally the definition of an architecture diagram would be rigorous enough that there is no ambiguity
Rigor is a big "if" in software ;). See: UML's attempt. C4 is some very loose guidelines. IIRC, a big part of its attraction is the lack of rigor/formal standards.
Anyway, best of luck! Feel free to reach out if you'd like to chat diagrams
Sounds good, thanks for the feedback! Would open-sourcing CodeViz change your willingness to give it a try?
Definitely agree that rigor is a tricky term here, do you think the open-ended nature of C4 diagrams is a feature, not a bug? We've found in practice that top level diagram generation is both an art and a science, maybe it ought to stay that way.
In any case, shooting you a PM to set up some time to chat, and thanks again for the input!
Definitely agree that rigor is a tricky term here, do you think the open-ended nature of C4 diagrams is a feature, not a bug? We've found in practice that top level diagram generation is both an art and a science, maybe it ought to stay that way.
In any case, shooting you a PM to set up some time to chat, and thanks again for the input!
> Would open-sourcing CodeViz change your willingness to give it a try?
Yup. Or a web app that I can point to an open-source repo.
Regarding C4, I'm no expert. I know the guys at IcePanel, an earlier YC-cohort company (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34338995) that specializes in C4 diagrams, and they're very friendly, so if you haven't yet, they'll be much more equipped to chime in on C4 stuff.
Yup. Or a web app that I can point to an open-source repo.
Regarding C4, I'm no expert. I know the guys at IcePanel, an earlier YC-cohort company (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34338995) that specializes in C4 diagrams, and they're very friendly, so if you haven't yet, they'll be much more equipped to chime in on C4 stuff.
“On mobile? Add a calendar reminder to install CodeViz”
This is genius
This is genius
Perfect. Now I have a calendar event to “Install Covid”. Thanks!
The name association is a genuine concern of ours :)
Let's hope it spreads as well :p
I was struck by that as well! Unfortunately it seems hardwired to Google calendar which i do not use. I’ll remember though, I think..
Just added an option to choose between Google and Apple calendar
Thanks! Inspired by my bad memory and half of our website visitors being on mobile
where are you quoting that from?
Some text on our website's homepage (https://codeviz.ai)
Since you are asking for feedback, I would seriously consider buying licenses for my team if:
- We are allowed to use our own API key to get your extension to talk directly with our LLM of choice. I understand you are using Claude right now, but we are on OpenAI & Copilot; since we already went through the hoops of "accepting that our codebase will be sent to an LLM", we are trying to control the level of exposure. OpenAI is already in, Claude isn't; and you definitely won't be so having our codebase go through your infra is a no go. Local LLM would be incredible, but it might be not technically achievable yet.
- The price is too steep. I get way more value out of Copilot than I get from CodeViz which is similarly priced. I understand you have LLM costs at the moment, but as the point above defends: it does not have to be that way. I would find it way more "fair" to have to insert my LLM API (even for the free version and/or trial, right now you are loosing money on that) and have a separate cost for the extension; possibly with a "lifelong for current version + 1 year of upgrade license". Let me pay the usage to the LLM monthly depending on my actual usage, and pay you to build a very nice prompt engineering system.
- We are allowed to use our own API key to get your extension to talk directly with our LLM of choice. I understand you are using Claude right now, but we are on OpenAI & Copilot; since we already went through the hoops of "accepting that our codebase will be sent to an LLM", we are trying to control the level of exposure. OpenAI is already in, Claude isn't; and you definitely won't be so having our codebase go through your infra is a no go. Local LLM would be incredible, but it might be not technically achievable yet.
- The price is too steep. I get way more value out of Copilot than I get from CodeViz which is similarly priced. I understand you have LLM costs at the moment, but as the point above defends: it does not have to be that way. I would find it way more "fair" to have to insert my LLM API (even for the free version and/or trial, right now you are loosing money on that) and have a separate cost for the extension; possibly with a "lifelong for current version + 1 year of upgrade license". Let me pay the usage to the LLM monthly depending on my actual usage, and pay you to build a very nice prompt engineering system.
Thanks for providing context on the LLM approval process! User provided API keys will be completed by the end of the week: https://github.com/EdisonLabs-Inc/CodeViz-Public/issues/3
> The price is too steep. I get way more value out of Copilot than I get from CodeViz which is similarly priced.
Copilot is a great product and inexpensive, I do understand where you're coming from. Personally, I spend most of my time reading code and gathering context vs typing code. We hope to provide much more than $19/mo in value, so the subscription is a good signal for whether we're making something useful for you. We also have more features for team licenses that we haven't publicized.
The reduced subscription price for using your own API key does make sense though. If you send me an email or message me on discord I'd be happy to chat this over. This goes for anyone with a strong opinion on the matter
> The price is too steep. I get way more value out of Copilot than I get from CodeViz which is similarly priced.
Copilot is a great product and inexpensive, I do understand where you're coming from. Personally, I spend most of my time reading code and gathering context vs typing code. We hope to provide much more than $19/mo in value, so the subscription is a good signal for whether we're making something useful for you. We also have more features for team licenses that we haven't publicized.
The reduced subscription price for using your own API key does make sense though. If you send me an email or message me on discord I'd be happy to chat this over. This goes for anyone with a strong opinion on the matter
> The price is too steep
what is the price? After looking at the website or the marketplace, I can't see any pricing at all (except the "free" on the marketplace page)
> I understand you are using Claude right now
On the marketplace page it says "We do use LLMs and sections of code to prompt Claude/OpenAI." under "Data & Privacy"
what is the price? After looking at the website or the marketplace, I can't see any pricing at all (except the "free" on the marketplace page)
> I understand you are using Claude right now
On the marketplace page it says "We do use LLMs and sections of code to prompt Claude/OpenAI." under "Data & Privacy"
To generate second layer of architecture diagram, $19/mo subscription with a 7 day free trial. The call graph and top layer of the architecture diagram are free. We'll update our website and the extension with pricing info asap. The subscription didn't exist until a couple of days ago, since layered architecture is a feature that we made public specifically for HN to try.
We only use Anthropic at the moment, but we left OpenAI in the Data & Privacy in case we change models (not in the foreseeable future)
We only use Anthropic at the moment, but we left OpenAI in the Data & Privacy in case we change models (not in the foreseeable future)
Was looking for that too. The only way I found out was installing it, create a call graph, and the first click took me to a payment page. $19,95/month iirc
I too would prefer to have this information upfront.
Also, not being able to click past the first layer in the free version is a bit too limited in my opinion.
Sounds promising, but having to fill out my payment details for a trial version is a a hard no for me.
Also, not being able to click past the first layer in the free version is a bit too limited in my opinion.
Sounds promising, but having to fill out my payment details for a trial version is a a hard no for me.
> The only way I found out was installing it, create a call graph, and the first click took me to a payment page
Yes, we need to be much more clear. It's not intentionally hard to find, we just been distracted with bugs and haven't had time to update the website. The subscription didn't exist until a couple of days ago. The layered architecture is a feature that we made public specifically for the HN community
> Having to fill out my payment details for a trial version is a a hard no for me
We'd love to embed a demo repo for people to play with, or let users generate nested architecture for one repo before having to subscribe
Yes, we need to be much more clear. It's not intentionally hard to find, we just been distracted with bugs and haven't had time to update the website. The subscription didn't exist until a couple of days ago. The layered architecture is a feature that we made public specifically for the HN community
> Having to fill out my payment details for a trial version is a a hard no for me
We'd love to embed a demo repo for people to play with, or let users generate nested architecture for one repo before having to subscribe
I, and I'm guessing most people, don't have a use case that warrants a subscription for such a service let alone one that costs $20/month.
Happy to pay a one time fee and the ability to use my local LLM
Happy to pay a one time fee and the ability to use my local LLM
If something increases productivity 1% and costs $20 it's already easily worth it for most professional software developers.
Thanks for the feedback! A fully local stack would give control back to developers, which we would love to do once open source model performance improves. Hoping we can change your mind on the value of navigating and editing code with visual diagrams, it's quite a bit easier!
I'd love to try this against my spaghetti, but I can't send my company's IP to you or anthropic or anyone else. I'll have to try against open source projects we rely heavily on first.
We'd love to have CodeViz run with local LLMs so you can untangle the spaghetti. The call graph is generated without LLMs or servers - any interest in a 'local only' mode so you can still use CodeViz while keeping your code on-device?
Not the person you asked, but YES, it's a deal-breaker for me to even consider using at work.
On it! Tracked here: https://github.com/EdisonLabs-Inc/CodeViz-Public/issues/2
Great! Thanks. :)
Does my codebase leave my machine when using your extension with it?
Yes, some code is sent to Anthropic. We're hoping to: find initial users that are comfortable with software copilots (github copilot, cursor, etc) -> iterate on their feedback to make diagram generation require less sophisticated LLMs -> move everything locally
This will be a no go for more and more large companies.
We just had a major incident because someone accidentally uploaded our codebase via a VS code extension, lawyers, everything involved. I expect that non local AI tools will be banned soon.
Think about it, what 3rd party tool would you let scrape your whole codebase and send it to their server?
We just had a major incident because someone accidentally uploaded our codebase via a VS code extension, lawyers, everything involved. I expect that non local AI tools will be banned soon.
Think about it, what 3rd party tool would you let scrape your whole codebase and send it to their server?
Makes total sense, and sorry to hear about the incident. At the moment, closed source models are the only viable way to generate high quality diagrams. Once that changes, we'd prefer to switch to open source too for many of the reasons you mentioned.
Sent via your servers, I assume, since you are providing the Anthropic api key.
So we must trust both Anthropic's and your infrastructure with our code.
I agree that a local LLM is the way to go.
So we must trust both Anthropic's and your infrastructure with our code.
I agree that a local LLM is the way to go.
That's correct, our server just routes calls directly to Anthropic. Some users requested an option to input their own API key and talk to Anthropic directly. I'll add this by the end of the week, maybe today if time.
Local LLM is still the end goal
Local LLM is still the end goal
Ok. I think you should be more transparent about this, until everything is local.
I mean, more than stating "We don't store any of your code."
I mean, more than stating "We don't store any of your code."
Got it, how about a manual trigger for diagram creation and an explicit description of LLM/server usage on the page with the trigger?
Maybe just the truth in plain text, up front?
There seems to be a bug or comment depth limit, I can't reply to your comment below. I just published an update to extension description explaining that code moves through our servers. It may take a few minutes to appear. Since this post, we added a privacy policy to our website and the ability to input your own API key, circumventing our servers altogether. I will list this feature in the extension description once we have time to require manual triggering of architecture generation
Sure thing - we'll plainly state this in the extension's description, the extension itself, and our website
Hi again. I just checked the VS Code extension description - it hasn't changed.
there is a codevis application in the open for almost two years. it generates large scale software visualization for c, c++ and fortran (but it accepts other languages as plugins).
i am the main developer of this tool, and im a bit shocked that another tool with similar intent and same name exists.
woyod you be ok for me to demo what codevis (the kde one) do to your team?
you can reach me at tcanabrava at kde.org
the source of codevis is at invent.kde.org/sdk/codevis
Twice the monthly cost of Copilot seems crazy to me, and I’m nowhere near as subscription-hostile as most folks here.
I get where you're coming from - Copilot is very cheap and useful! We want the free version of CodeViz to be as useful as possible for you. Some features, like the second architecture layer, are just expensive for us.
Personally, I spend a small fraction of my time actually typing code and much more time gathering context & building a mental map. CodeViz speeds up the mental map part, so we hope to deliver much more value than $19/mo
Let me know if there's anything missing from CodeViz that would change your mind!
Personally, I spend a small fraction of my time actually typing code and much more time gathering context & building a mental map. CodeViz speeds up the mental map part, so we hope to deliver much more value than $19/mo
Let me know if there's anything missing from CodeViz that would change your mind!
Interesting point! You’ve convinced me that something like this done well could actually be more valuable than code generation.
I personally don’t like VS Code although if this works well I might open it just for this feature. I’d still be coding and taking notes in emacs though. Any thoughts on putting most of the smarts into a server process so that any editor can have a plug-in that talks to it?
Definitely an interesting thought, although we wouldn't be able to support any UI/UX. We could host a separate utility and expose endpoints for UML or markdown though.
Please do consider it! I would love to have this feature in emacs and would be willing to write an implementation if this bit was done.
Codeviz is such a cool project. Love having it in VSCode.
Glad you like it! Let us know if you have any suggestions
Does it show dead code? Like classes which are not being used by anything and are safe to delete?
The call graph doesn't highlight dead code specifically, but unused blocks are manually identifiable through isolated/broken chains. Is this something you'd like to see?
I did something like this in chrome devtools a long time ago.
It was fun to look at various sites front end architecture.
I started to do complexity analysis as well, because, why not. But I got busy with actual work.
I wonder if I can dig it back from somewhere.
It was fun to look at various sites front end architecture.
I started to do complexity analysis as well, because, why not. But I got busy with actual work.
I wonder if I can dig it back from somewhere.
Going by the video, I see the diagrams have lines, but unfortunately no labels. Do lines always mean "dependency"? E.g. file dependency, dependency on a database or service, etc.
The lines represent a connection or interaction between different parts of the codebase. Most often these are dependencies like you mentioned, but a "dependency" could be a parent-child relationship, API call, imported function, and there are certain exceptions such as user interactions. Right now immediate edge labels are displayed on node hover, but I agree that the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of lines should be precisely defined. Any thoughts on what you'd like to see?
Seems like there is a lot of potential here, although a hard sell up against the licensing fees of products from e.g. Jetbrains. I’m sure yours will be better at its one thing than a more generalised product but it’s a tough market. Compared to what specialised engineering software costs (see Solidworks) it is cheap, but we are very stingy in software.
On a different note: I’m wondering, do you have any function calling built in? Is there room for combining LLM output with LSP calls?
On a different note: I’m wondering, do you have any function calling built in? Is there room for combining LLM output with LSP calls?
Glad you see the potential! We do have an existing function "call graph" view that uses traditional static analysis methods with LSP calls. Augmenting this view with LLMs seems very promising, and we are very much headed in that direction! Are there use cases you can see this being helpful for?
Diagrams of code can be done with UML ¹.
A fairly decent ² standard with a set of different diagrams
that can be created to visualize code.
In those terms CodeViz will provide a form of simplified class diagrams and a function call mapping?
Will there be sequence diagrams in the future?
¹ https://www.uml.org/ ² It has fallen out of fashion, since many people found it too heavy, and a lot of people have hever heard of it.
In those terms CodeViz will provide a form of simplified class diagrams and a function call mapping?
Will there be sequence diagrams in the future?
¹ https://www.uml.org/ ² It has fallen out of fashion, since many people found it too heavy, and a lot of people have hever heard of it.
Yes, we'd like to introduce more standard rules and visual notations as provided by UML. Did you get a chance to try the call graph? It contains functions and classes in one view. We're going to give the user control over the call graph's scope (whether to show functions, classes, files, etc), which would be closer to simplified class diagrams/function call mapping.
The info in sequence diagrams is useful - maybe we can show this using a hierarchical layout & edge labels
The info in sequence diagrams is useful - maybe we can show this using a hierarchical layout & edge labels
Hi Liam - can't seem to see a call graph. I've sent a report, but wasn't sure what to expect, as your site has a nice preview of the architectuer graph, but not the call graph functionality. Perhaps add a second preview? $19 does seem a little steep. Would it be possible to have a lower cost with a user supplied 3rd party LLM service key?
Thanks for the report, following up now. We'll make some updates to our website asap. Preview of the call graph can be seen in our video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgfDXUtWzRk. Happy to chat about reduced subscription price.
I created an issue for user provided API keys, tracked here: https://github.com/EdisonLabs-Inc/CodeViz-Public/issues/3
I created an issue for user provided API keys, tracked here: https://github.com/EdisonLabs-Inc/CodeViz-Public/issues/3
wow looks really good. i've been expecting this space to get much better (because it never looked good) and this looks primising. congrats!
Doesn't mention a cost or trial period in your post or the website
After installing it, it doesn't even let you see the first thing without signing up for a trial period and even then doesn't mention a cost.
I understand you just launched it, but I look at the free trial and think "what else am I going to find out...", uninstalled for now but hope you find traction.
After installing it, it doesn't even let you see the first thing without signing up for a trial period and even then doesn't mention a cost.
I understand you just launched it, but I look at the free trial and think "what else am I going to find out...", uninstalled for now but hope you find traction.
Agreed this is a poor experience, we're making pricing very transparent now. Hope you give CodeViz another chance. Were you able to generate the top level architecture or interact with the call graph? If you couldn't use CodeViz, or saw the subscription modal immediately after opening the extension, this is a bug that I'll look into
Yep I did see some kind of top level graph, with a few items in it (maybe 5?), but that wasn't very useful. It was also quite small as it was in the left panel of vscode, so nothing of value at that point. This was with a pretty vanilla react/typescript codebase.
Maybe I was supposed to single click one to find out more? I double clicked for what it's worth, and got the message to upgrade. But given that it hadn't done anything useful yet I of course had no reason to proceed. Just early feedback, I'm sure you'll get it all worked out.
Maybe I was supposed to single click one to find out more? I double clicked for what it's worth, and got the message to upgrade. But given that it hadn't done anything useful yet I of course had no reason to proceed. Just early feedback, I'm sure you'll get it all worked out.
I have it a quick shot and I must say the UI is not easy to grasp. The graph is interesting and surprisingly well understanding my codebase.
But the navigation? Not easy to understand how to use it. Any video for helping us out see what we can do and how we can do it ?
But the navigation? Not easy to understand how to use it. Any video for helping us out see what we can do and how we can do it ?
Very cool. Have built something like this in the past - let me know if you are hiring.
Curious to learn more about the project, what were you working on? We're not hiring at the moment, but let's stay in touch!
Static analysis platform with multiple language frontends and backends. Have some large scale renderings if you ever want to see them or take a poke through the repo.
There are so many cool projects for working with code repos posted on HN that I will never get to enjoy at work, because my repo is google3, and it has like 40 million files and 100 million classes. Oh well.
Should we let users choose which folders they want analyzed and leave all selected by default?
i wonder how many of these innovative early projects will eventually be a forcing function for FAANG to shed engineers that want to stay on top of the latest stuff. but then again, golden handcuffs are real so maybe not
I am surprised there is no word "privacy" in this page, as of this comment!
Could be useful for me. Will keep an eye on this.
Yeah dude, take my money. I can't believe what I'm seeing. You've actually given me a reason to use a second monitor again.
I like your thing.
I have been forcing my bot to give me Mermaid diagrams, swim diagrams, markup tables of schemas, code, logic etc...
I like where you guys are going, but what I think would be really fun - would be a Node Based diagram logic, where the boxes that you show in the diagram are Code-geometry-Nodes - and could be connected with code blocks as such.
Watch @HarryBlends videos on Geometry Nodes in Blender for Inspiration:
https://www.youtube.com/@harryblends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-4oCHe-hDE
These are the best graphic/node based visuals for describing structured relationships in maths I've ever seen.
To give you some CyberPunk FutureVision of what your outpus could be like -- if it turned all the code nodes into atomic code legos and rather than drawing the diagram from the code - I can use the diagram to create the code.
--
WRT "...some code goes to anthropic..." while answering another, seems like you guys would do well to know these guys:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41381498
https://www.usevelvet.com/
As well as these guys:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41322281
https://github.com/instantdb/instant
I have been forcing my bot to give me Mermaid diagrams, swim diagrams, markup tables of schemas, code, logic etc...
I like where you guys are going, but what I think would be really fun - would be a Node Based diagram logic, where the boxes that you show in the diagram are Code-geometry-Nodes - and could be connected with code blocks as such.
Watch @HarryBlends videos on Geometry Nodes in Blender for Inspiration:
https://www.youtube.com/@harryblends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-4oCHe-hDE
These are the best graphic/node based visuals for describing structured relationships in maths I've ever seen.
To give you some CyberPunk FutureVision of what your outpus could be like -- if it turned all the code nodes into atomic code legos and rather than drawing the diagram from the code - I can use the diagram to create the code.
--
WRT "...some code goes to anthropic..." while answering another, seems like you guys would do well to know these guys:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41381498
https://www.usevelvet.com/
As well as these guys:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41322281
https://github.com/instantdb/instant
Thanks for the feedback and resources!
In designing CodeViz we were inspired by the Maya hypershade, which closely resembles the diagram-based blender tool that you shared.
https://help.autodesk.com/view/MAYAUL/2024/ENU/?guid=GUID-22...
These examples show how taking a diagram-based approach to software development can abstract away complexity with minimal loss of control over the end result. I love your image of "atomic code legos," and these legos can still always be edited the level of code when needed.
And yes, if CodeViz can generate architecture diagrams from code, the inverse can and will be possible: generating code from architecture diagrams.
In designing CodeViz we were inspired by the Maya hypershade, which closely resembles the diagram-based blender tool that you shared.
https://help.autodesk.com/view/MAYAUL/2024/ENU/?guid=GUID-22...
These examples show how taking a diagram-based approach to software development can abstract away complexity with minimal loss of control over the end result. I love your image of "atomic code legos," and these legos can still always be edited the level of code when needed.
And yes, if CodeViz can generate architecture diagrams from code, the inverse can and will be possible: generating code from architecture diagrams.
Exactly!
I've been wanting to have a GPT directly inside Blender to Talk Geometry Nodes - because I want to tie geometry nodes to external data to external data which runs as python inside blender that draws the object geometry that suitabley shows/diagrams out the nodes of my game I am slowly piecing together 'The Oligarchs' which is an updated Illuminati style game - but with updates using AI to creat nodes directly from Oligarch IRL files, such as their SEC Filings, Panama Papers, and all the tools on HN are suited to creating. I went to school for Softimage & Alias|WAVEFRONT (which became MAYA) Animation in 1995 :-)
So I like your DNA.
I want to unpack the relationships of the Oligarch, programmatically, with hexagonal nodes, similar to this[0]- but driven by Node-based-python-blocks-GraphQL-hierachy. And I am slowly learning how to get GPTBots to spit out the appropriate Elements for me to get there.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSr6yUBs8tY
(ive posted a bunch of disjointed information on this on HN - more specifically about how to compartmentalize GPT responses and code and how to drive them to write code using Style-Guide, and gather data using structures rules for how the outputs need to be presented..)
EDIT:
I wanted to share with you: Building an app with claude, where I tell it to "give me a ps1 that sets a fastAPI directory structure, creates the venv, touches the correct files give me a readme and follow the best practice for fastAPI from [this github repo from netflix]
https://i.imgur.com/7YOjJf8.png
https://i.imgur.com/KecrvfZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/tKYsmb9.png
https://i.imgur.com/nCGOfSU.png
https://i.imgur.com/ayDrXZA.png
Etc -- I always make it diagram. Now I can throw a bunch of blocks in a directory and tell it to grab the components from the directory and build [THIS INTENT].app for my.
I've been wanting to have a GPT directly inside Blender to Talk Geometry Nodes - because I want to tie geometry nodes to external data to external data which runs as python inside blender that draws the object geometry that suitabley shows/diagrams out the nodes of my game I am slowly piecing together 'The Oligarchs' which is an updated Illuminati style game - but with updates using AI to creat nodes directly from Oligarch IRL files, such as their SEC Filings, Panama Papers, and all the tools on HN are suited to creating. I went to school for Softimage & Alias|WAVEFRONT (which became MAYA) Animation in 1995 :-)
So I like your DNA.
I want to unpack the relationships of the Oligarch, programmatically, with hexagonal nodes, similar to this[0]- but driven by Node-based-python-blocks-GraphQL-hierachy. And I am slowly learning how to get GPTBots to spit out the appropriate Elements for me to get there.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSr6yUBs8tY
(ive posted a bunch of disjointed information on this on HN - more specifically about how to compartmentalize GPT responses and code and how to drive them to write code using Style-Guide, and gather data using structures rules for how the outputs need to be presented..)
EDIT:
I wanted to share with you: Building an app with claude, where I tell it to "give me a ps1 that sets a fastAPI directory structure, creates the venv, touches the correct files give me a readme and follow the best practice for fastAPI from [this github repo from netflix]
https://i.imgur.com/7YOjJf8.png
https://i.imgur.com/KecrvfZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/tKYsmb9.png
https://i.imgur.com/nCGOfSU.png
https://i.imgur.com/ayDrXZA.png
Etc -- I always make it diagram. Now I can throw a bunch of blocks in a directory and tell it to grab the components from the directory and build [THIS INTENT].app for my.
This sounds like an ambitious project with a number of interesting technical challenges. It may be some time before the tooling will exist to support your use case, but then again, you can always build custom tooling of your own! It's very interesting to see how with minimal intervention, many of these operations seem very close to being automated. Thanks for sharing!
The extension is public if you want to try it on your own repos: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=CodeViz....
Will and I started CodeViz because we wanted more intuitive representations of software. During our time at Tesla, we encountered a common problem: software engineers spend very little time actually typing code. Most development time was spent navigating convoluted files and building a mental map for each task. At the same time, whiteboard sessions were proof that code could be expressed intuitively.
We started with autogenerated technical documentation. Of course, long markdown docs are not a good solution for long files of code. We realized we needed diagrams that (a) help grasp large quantities of code and (b) can be filtered according to the developer’s task. So, we built a graph-based VS Code extension. It generates diagrams directly within VS Code, illustrating connections between functions and providing overviews of system architecture. These visualizations update as code changes.
CodeViz appears as a side panel in VS Code with two views:
(1) Call graph: as you click on functions, we show a chain of upstream and downstream references. You can navigate your codebase using the call stack and see, in one view, everywhere your functions are called. We generate this call graph using the language servers developers have already installed in VS Code
(2) Architecture diagram: we create a C4 diagram of your system, so you can see a top-level view of your codebase and click into the component layer. We were surprised to find that a small fraction of code can generate a very accurate representation of the system. We detect these important files, then use LLMs to build nested architecture diagrams at the container and component level
Developers are mainly using our extension to navigate spaghetti code, onboard new devs, and interpret open source repos. We're still figuring out our pricing. Currently, we offer basic features for free, with a paid tier for more resource-intensive tools like detailed architecture diagrams. Open to suggestions on this approach.
CodeViz is in active development and our main focus over the next couple of days is to make the call graph much easier to view and navigate. We're continuously working to make it better, so your honest feedback, suggestions, and wishes would be very helpful. Looking forward to hearing any and all thoughts, whether about the current extension, general problem space, or something else!