A bit of an intro/announcement blog post for Hegel ("Hypothesis, Antithesis, synthesis", [0]) was submitted here ~2 weeks ago [1] and got a fair bit of discussion (106 comments).
I didn't expect to see Hegel when opening up HN today! Feel free to ask any questions about it. We released hegel-go earlier this week, and plan to release hegel-cpp sometime next week, so look forward to that :)
How exciting! I wrote my own pbt lib for zig (https://github.com/AntoineBalaine/zlowcheck) and it made me sad I couldn't get it nearly close to hypothesis. Looking forward to see this grow!
Any hope for ffi through the c abi?
In reality, we hope to provide more guidance than this to people who want to write their own language frontend. This protocol reference doesn't talk about the realities of [hegel-core](https://github.com/hegeldev/hegel-core) and how to invoke it, for example.
We intend to write a "How to write your own Hegel library" how-to guide. You can subscribe to this issue to get notified when we write that: https://github.com/hegeldev/website/issues/3.
PSA: On the surface it looks great - but it's something that spawns a Python server (with uv - I think) and does communicate with it during tests. I don't think it's complexity we need to take on on our unit tests.
A saner approach would be to start with a FFI-friendly language and create bindings. I don't think just being able to use an already written framework in Python is worth the trade-off.
> A saner approach would be to start with a FFI-friendly language and create bindings. I don't think just being able to use an already written framework in Python is worth the trade-off.
For what it's worth the devs say their "current long-term plan is to implement a second Hegel server in Rust" [0], so the current state of affairs is probably a compromise between getting something usable for end users out and something more "sane", as you put it.
Completely agree. It's absolutely awful having software projects squatting on the names of great philosophers and artists. I appreciate that perhaps the author wanted to show their appreciation, but there are plenty of other equally communicative options.
(I can really only do your question a modicum of justice by answering metaphorically.) That Anglo-American analytic philosophy, which has dominated much of 20th century Western philosophy and Western thought, was doomed from the start. It treated ontological Being as fixed, as beings nailed to a wall, lifeless and immobile. Hegelian philosophy, more than anything, is about movement.
Also I thought that 20th century analytic thought dissolved metaphysics entirely and didn't want to talk about it. I mean sure then you can question, "why delete metaphysics" but then you can't say that the 20th century brought this kind of stuff
> It treated ontological Being as fixed, as beings nailed to a wall, lifeless and immobile.
Wait I thought Heidegger claimed that title? Or is he the guy who shifted Being from a noun to a verb, and Hegel's still focusing on the noun (just that the noun itself is a moving concept)?
I’ve read primary text excerpts from Hegel and some secondary sources too, and already knew that he didn’t write in that style, but the general idea that many forces in life develop themselves dialectically (the antithesis sometimes being expressed as alienation) is very similar in concept.
That a myth has developed around the terminology and methodology is persuading, but also there’s nothing wrong with a programming library to call itself Hegel.
On the other hand, I have quite the visceral reaction to the name because of the influence Hegel had on Marx, and subsequent 20th century critical theorists.
I often gesture towards this phenomenology when religious folk casually attempt to claim "spirit" as some form of belief they hold over me. I honestly don't know if I've developed the position well, it is almost entirely through the lens of continental philosophy absorbing Hegel, but I use it to illustrate that my concept of spirit, as an atheist, may not be a different phenomenological occurrence than that of a religious framing and even shares the quality of a rich historical lineage I can draw from. I could just as easily retreat into untranslated German that sounds poetic or prophetic to the uninitiated, but that would be doing exactly what I'm asking them not to do, leaning on a vocabulary the other person can't engage with without first conceding the ground it's built on. This seems to effectively persuade them to adjust their vocabulary to a register I can actually engage with without needing to hedge for the axiomatic differences we have.
This is a comfortable mode of engagement and it is one I can share with religious folk, but I do find they often refuse this register and I will admit I can't always articulate why I find their refusal frustrating either.
Off-topic but only today I was thinking of Hegel-related names for a certain business idea. Was wondering who had registered all the domains, well here's one. It would a completely different domain, and also a derivation of the name, so nothing to worry about there. But if I build something in Rust, I'll remember you :)
In the era of AI codegen, I think property-based testing will and should see greater uptake. Unit tests are too brittle for the grind on it till it works methods of agentic written code.
[0]: https://antithesis.com/blog/2026/hegel/
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504094
In reality, we hope to provide more guidance than this to people who want to write their own language frontend. This protocol reference doesn't talk about the realities of [hegel-core](https://github.com/hegeldev/hegel-core) and how to invoke it, for example.
We intend to write a "How to write your own Hegel library" how-to guide. You can subscribe to this issue to get notified when we write that: https://github.com/hegeldev/website/issues/3.
If you're eager, pointing your favorite LLM at https://hegel.dev/reference/protocol + https://github.com/hegeldev/hegel-rust and asking it to write you one for your language of choice should be enough to get you started!
A saner approach would be to start with a FFI-friendly language and create bindings. I don't think just being able to use an already written framework in Python is worth the trade-off.
For what it's worth the devs say their "current long-term plan is to implement a second Hegel server in Rust" [0], so the current state of affairs is probably a compromise between getting something usable for end users out and something more "sane", as you put it.
[0]: https://antithesis.com/blog/2026/hegel/#what%E2%80%99s-next
> It treated ontological Being as fixed, as beings nailed to a wall, lifeless and immobile.
This reads more as a response to Plato & Kant
That a myth has developed around the terminology and methodology is persuading, but also there’s nothing wrong with a programming library to call itself Hegel.
Interesting paper regardless thanks for sharing.
Antithesis: the tests pass with 100% coverage
Synthesis: the bug is a feature
I often gesture towards this phenomenology when religious folk casually attempt to claim "spirit" as some form of belief they hold over me. I honestly don't know if I've developed the position well, it is almost entirely through the lens of continental philosophy absorbing Hegel, but I use it to illustrate that my concept of spirit, as an atheist, may not be a different phenomenological occurrence than that of a religious framing and even shares the quality of a rich historical lineage I can draw from. I could just as easily retreat into untranslated German that sounds poetic or prophetic to the uninitiated, but that would be doing exactly what I'm asking them not to do, leaning on a vocabulary the other person can't engage with without first conceding the ground it's built on. This seems to effectively persuade them to adjust their vocabulary to a register I can actually engage with without needing to hedge for the axiomatic differences we have.
This is a comfortable mode of engagement and it is one I can share with religious folk, but I do find they often refuse this register and I will admit I can't always articulate why I find their refusal frustrating either.
(I strongly recommend the latter.)
I want to cry...