11–15 of 15 posts
it would be interesting if copilot could generate the code based on your unit tests
Seems to me that once you can go either way then you just proved the other redundant.
it would be interesting if copilot could generate the code based on your unit tests
Would that be more desirable than building your tests from your application? Seems to me that once you can go either way then you just proved the other redundant.
https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste...
^ where the 'unit' is basically a function. i.e., to test a function fully, write a test as complicated as the function
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mediocre. Sometimes it's plain wrong, sometimes right but not exact and so on.
Was Copilot's value proposition that it gets better over time as more developers use it over a longer period?
He probably spent more time figuring out if the suggestions are usable than he would have needed to just implement those manually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was Copilot's value proposition that it gets better over time as more developers use it over a longer period?
But the value for who? Last time I checked the consensus was that using it in any project that is not for private use can get you in legal trouble. So for me it's completely useless, even if technically it could be improved with time (which may or may not happen).
Presumably value "unlocked" for GitHub investors, by leveraging the ML model that drives some product based upon Copilot like a next-gen IDE. I agree it's not a good risk to assume for the users of Copilot.