Live data from Hacker News

Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

danieldelaney.net

91–100 of 432 posts

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#91
post #87

This is lowkey cope. AI should be like talking to another human, at least that is the promise. Instead we're getting glorified autocomplete with padded language to sound like a human. In its current form LLMs are pretty much at their limit, barring optimization and chaining them together for more productivity once we have better hardware. Still, it will just be useful for repetitive low level tasks and mediocre art.…

>In its current form LLMs are pretty much at their limit

How do you know that?

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#92
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email threads seem better for documenting and searching correspondence. The last counter argument I read got buried on Discord or Slack somewhere.

Discord and slack baffle me. I liked them specifically because they were more ephemeral than other options. Which, seems at odds with how people want them to be? Why?

Can't say for everyone, but I have terrible memory and rely heavily on the chat history (and other tools) to keep my mental model in shape.

Here, ephemeral means "this conversation might as well never had happened", so why waste time on that?

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#93
post #5

Natural language isn’t made to be precise that’s why we use a subset in programming languages. So you either need lots of extra text to remove the ambiguity of natural language if you use AI or you need a special precise subset to communicate with AI and that’s just programming with extra steps.

> or you need a special precise subset to communicate with AI

haha, I just imagined sending TypeScript to ChatGPT and having it spit my TypeScript back to me. "See guys, if you just use Turing-complete logically unambiguous input, you get perfect output!"

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are kind of actually there already. With a 200k token window like Claude has you can already dump a lot of design docs / transcripts / etc. at it.

Its all about the context window. Even the new Mistral Codestral-2501 256K CW does a great job. If you use cline with any large context model the results can be pretty amazing. It's not close to self guiding, You still need to break down and analyze the problem and provide clear and relevant instructions. IE you need to be a great architect. Once you are stable on the direction, its awe inspiring to watch it do the b…

Issue I have with Cline that I don't run into with, say, Aider, is that I find Cline to be like 10x more expensive. The number of tokens it blows through is incredible. Is that just me?

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#96
I call it 'structured prompting' [think pseudo-code]. It strikes a nice balance between human-readable logic and structured programming, allowing the LLM to focus on generating accurate code based on clear steps. It’s especially useful when you want to specify the what (the logic) without worrying too much about the how (syntax and language-specific details). If you can create an effective system that supports this kind of input, it would likely be a big step forward in making code generation more intuitive and efficient. Good old UML could also be used.

Example of a Structured Pseudo-Code Prompt:

Let’s say you want to generate code for a function that handles object detection:

'''Function: object_detection Input: image Output: list of detected objects

Steps: 1. Initialize model (load pretrained object detection model)

2. Preprocess the image (resize, normalize, etc.)

3. Run the image through the model

4. Extract bounding boxes and confidence scores from the model's output

5. Return objects with confidence greater than 0.5 as a list of tuples (object_name, bounding_box)

Language: Python'''

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#98
> This is the core problem. You can’t build real software without being precise about what you want.

I've tested a few integrated AI dev tools and it works like a charm. I don't type all my instructions at once. I do it the same way as I do it with code. Iteratively:

1) Create a layout

2) Fill left side

3) Fill right side

4) Connect components

5) Populate with dummy data

> The first company to get this will own the next phase of AI development tools.

There's more than 25 working on this problem and they are already in production and some are really good.

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#99
I'm surprised that the article (and comments) haven't mentioned Cursor.

Agreed that copy pasting context in and out of ChatGPT isn't the fastest workflow. But Cursor has been a major speed up in the way I write code. And it's primarily through a chat interface, but with a few QOL hacks that make it way faster:

1. Output gets applied to your file in a git-diff style. So you can approve/deny changes.

2. It (kinda) has context of your codebase so you don't have to specify as much. Though it works best when you explicitly tag files ("Use the utils from @src/utils/currency.ts")

3. Directly inserting terminal logs or type errors into the chat interface is incredibly convenient. Just hover over the error and click the "add to chat"

Re: Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

#100
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discord and slack baffle me. I liked them specifically because they were more ephemeral than other options. Which, seems at odds with how people want them to be? Why?

Can't say for everyone, but I have terrible memory and rely heavily on the chat history (and other tools) to keep my mental model in shape. Here, ephemeral means "this conversation might as well never had happened", so why waste time on that?

I suspect it has to do with mental models. For my model, at large, conversations are worthless. Anyone that tries to hold you to a conversation from weeks ago that didn't secure a stronger commitment is almost certainly flying loose and more than willing to selectively choose what they want to be committed to.

Does that mean I can't have some pleasure in conversing about things? Of course not. But, I also enjoy some pleasure there from the low stakes and value that a conversation has. It should be safe to be wrong. If you have a conversation spot where being wrong is not safe, then I question what is the advantage of that over trying to adopt a legalese framework for all of your communication?

Post reply on HN