451–460 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. Instead we’ll be stuck using the old frameworks driver because LLMs won’t be able to learn anything new without years of stack overflow examples.
Already I bet stack overflow usage has gone down because LLMs can help fixing bugs. I think the documentation, open source code, and code examples are more important training sets. And in. my experience the code is often maybe 95% correct, so there will be a greater premium on expert developers who can spot and fix bugs (with the aid of LLMs, since stack overflow will no longer have any answers since no one will use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the team that came up with the prototype assumes that responsibility, then no, I don't. I'm sure an AI will understand how to refactor the codebase on an adhoc basis without creating any problems down the line.
Not a matter of refactoring. AI should ideally regenerate the code from the spec each time the requirements change. "Programming" won't go away, but it will refer to working with specification languages, not implementation languages. In the best of all possible worlds, you'd have to deal with the C++ or JavaScript code about as often you have to dig into the x86 or ARM assembly code now.
In your scenario, AI will likely produce code that _it_ determines to be maintainable, or if it’s rebuilt each time as you suggest, then it doesn’t need to be maintainable or readable at all.
Good code is written for teams, not individuals. It’s written for future you and future people who you will never meet.
Such recent demos show both how impressively ML/AI has advanced recently, and how unimpressively repetitive and unoriginal tasks keep being reimplemented by millions of developers worldwide. Since most UI screens can be accurately described in one or two paragraphs, it's no wonder they can be represented in much detail in a relatively small embedding vector.
Html supports a lot of UI widgets now but everybody keeps reimplementing their own. And because nobody is using them they arent improving so nobody is using them so they arent improving.
I know this isn’t quite a widget, but when something as simple as input type=“number” was introduced, I was excited because it could be used to call up the mobile keyboard for numeric input. (Say for a zip code, which is a common use case). But unfortunately, it can also be changed via your mouse’s scroll wheel, accidentally, so I’m stuck using input type=“tel” for everything. (Do you want to scroll to your zip code?)
The problem with these things is you can’t just push out improvements and fixes. Everything has to be backwards-compatible and I feel like they’re never nearly good enough at the beginning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to guess, there's a thing at the bottom asking for an OpenAI API key at the bottom, and it can't function without that. (So actually technically I think that means no, it's not using ChatGPT, but I don't think that was the point.)
I think it's accurate enough to call the OpenAI API the ChatGPT API since it's using the same models. But yeah, technically not the same thing.
In other contexts though I think it can be ambiguous and I can understand why people get irritated/pedantic about it - AIUI it's the same model but different training/parameters? And ChatGPT only gives you the 'user' prompt essentially, with the 'system' one already being 'you are a chatbot called ChatGPT [...]' or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate it when designers present what looks like polished and complete UIs in Figma. To the execs it looks like a finished product which frequently creates unreasonable expectations that interfere with what should be the iterative nature of UI design. I don’t know how many times I’ve come across a project where a terrible system design was foisted on a group of engineers because of the constraints required by a Figma…
I hate it with engineers complain moan and drag their feet on implementations that are hard but worth it. Because really under the surface they just don’t like doing something new, even if it has clearly defined user and business value.
The example I think of is if you have 2-3 related entities a developer might like a simple CRUD for each thing where you have to create the parent object before you can create the child (in a relationship). However sometimes the child is the obvious first thing a user wants to create so it’s important to build a UI that lets them create the parent on the fly or even have no parent until later.
As a younger dev I dug in my heals too often on things like that and I think it’s made me much better as a dev to approach designs with fresh eyes and think about how I’d want to experience the UI/UX instead of bringing preconceived notions based on how we built the existing code/UI.
One thing I will point out is I love working with designers who are open to “what if we did X instead of Y? X will take me 1 hour but the Y in your design will take 1 week”. Sometimes the “Y” is worth it and some times the designer thinks “X” is just fine (or even likes it better). Nothing is worse than strict designs passed down that need to be pixel-perfect with no wiggle room.
I was discussing with a client how to integrate our software with his. He sent me a screenshot of the main form. I put the screenshot into ChatGPT and said “make a react form like this in bootstrap”. Made some adjustments, added my software, a few hours later showed the client who was knocked out to see a proof of concept of our systems integrated so quickly. When doing web development I often take a screenshot of a…
Oh wow, that’s a neat idea that I hadn’t thought of before. I’m decent enough at CSS that I can normally fix it in dev tools then port/copy the styles to the code but I’ll have to remember that trick.
I haven’t used ChatGPT as much for code as I have CLI piping or bash scripts to munge data quickly. Things I wouldn’t have checked (like for debugging or proving a hypothesis) become almost easy when I can give ChatGPT the output of a command and ask it for bash to format/collate/sort/extract what I want out of it. I can do it manually but I’m slow at that process and have to google or use man pages to remember flags/args/etc. For code I mostly just use GH Copilot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to look down on it but when I heard it handles payment it blew my mind and I decided I'd rather use it myself if I ever make a shop instead of building it myself. To quote a random guy "I trust their code more than what I wrote at 2am."
I am a SWE. When I needed a website for a small business I was running, I used squarespace too. If you just need a static public facing site it's absolutely great.
Now for things that aren’t my core business (day job or side project) I’m much more likely to reach for a paid off-the-shelf solution.
After months of putting off building a marketing website for my side project I just paid for a tool to build/host it so all I had to do was plug in my info. Yes I could have hosted it for pennies on S3 with CloudFront in front of it but instead I setup a cname, paid like $20 for the year, and let this other company handle the responsive design (template) for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the thing is, creating a basic form page -is- simple. What is so amazing, is that after ~25 years of web development, we have continued to make it more complicated than it should be, by continuously coming up with new web frameworks that are brilliant for all kind of fancy use cases but overcomplicated for the more common and basic tasks. Yes, there have been exceptions every now and then, but most web devs don't…
The software world is much more flexible than the real world (yeah , I know, you're taking to Sherlock here). Go to a civil engineer and ask to create a building that tilts extremely on one side and requires concrete reinforcement with titanium whatever... they will laugh at you. Do the equivalent to a software engineer or product manager and they will hurry to invent yet another framework to satisfy your request, wi…