211–220 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you serious? Why not just vibe work with your human coworkers and merge to master then? Let's see what the outcome is!
> Are you serious? I am serious and didn't think anything I said here was contentious. Which part are you feeling incredulity over? I'll try to clarify if I've been unclear or learn from your perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hundreds of candidates? That's significant if not an exaggeration. What are the stark differences you have seen? Did you inquire about the candidate's use of language models?
Yes. I do async video interviews in round 1 of my interview process in order to narrow the candidate funnel. Candidates get a question at the start of the interview, with a series of things to work through in their own IDE while sharing their screen. I review all recordings (though I will skip around, and if candidates don't get very far I won't spend a lot of time watching at 1x speed.) The question as laid out enco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lines of code isn’t the point. Op claimed they asked Claude to recreate Claude code and it was successful. This is obviously an extreme exaggeration. I think this is the crux of a lot of these posts. This code generator output a very basic utility. To some this is a revelation, but it leaves others wondering what all the fuss is about. It seems to me people’s perspective on code gen has largely to do with their e…
It's a very narrow reading of his comment. What he meant to say was it quickly created a rudimentary version of an AI code editor. Just as a coworker used it to develop an AI code review tool in a day. It's not fancy - no bells and whistles, but it's still impressive to do it in a day with almost no manual coding.
Not sure it’s a narrow reading. This is my point, if it’s a basic or rudimentary version people should be explicit about that. Otherwise these posts read like hype and only lead to dissatisfaction and disappointment for others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried using Cursor rules? [1] Creating a standard library stdlib with many (potentially thousands) of rules, and then iteratively adding to and amending the rules as you go, is one of the best practices for successful AI coding. [1] https://docs.cursor.com/context/rules-for-ai
> …many (potentially thousands) of rules, and then iteratively adding to and amending the rules as you go… Is this an especially better (easier, more efficient) route to a working, quality app/system than conventional programming? I’m skeptical if the answer to the way to achieve 10x results is 10x more effort.
You could easily end up with a lot of rules if you are working with a reasonably large codebase.
And as you work on your code, every time you have to deal with an issue of the code generation you ask Cursor to create a new rule so that next time it does it correctly.
In terms of AI programming vs conventional programming, the writing's on the wall: AI assistance is only getting better and now is a good time to jump on the train. Knowing how to program and configure your AI assistants and tools is now a key software engineering skill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very narrow reading of his comment. What he meant to say was it quickly created a rudimentary version of an AI code editor. Just as a coworker used it to develop an AI code review tool in a day. It's not fancy - no bells and whistles, but it's still impressive to do it in a day with almost no manual coding.
> In one day (and $20), I essentially had recreated claude-code. Not sure it’s a narrow reading. This is my point, if it’s a basic or rudimentary version people should be explicit about that. Otherwise these posts read like hype and only lead to dissatisfaction and disappointment for others.
Reading something literally is by definition the narrowest interpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all of these posts I fail to see how this is engineering anymore. It seems like we are one step away from taking ourselves out of the picture completely.
I don’t write binaries, assembly, or C. If I don’t have to write an application, I’m okay with that. I still have to write the requirements, design, and acceptance criteria. I still have to gather the requirements from stakeholders, figure out why those will or will not work, provision infra, figure out how to glue said infra together, test and observe and debug the whole thing, get feedback from stakeholders… I have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do find value in asking simple but tedious task like a small refactor or generate commands, This is already a productivity boost. I'm more and more impressed about what I can get out of these tools (as you said, simple but tedious things). ChatGPT4o (provided by company) does pretty complex things for me, and I use it more and more. Actually, I noticed that when I can't use it (e.g. internal tools/languages), I'm…
Are you concerned that these tools will soon replace the need for engineers?
Does it mean that we'll need less engineers to perform the same amount of work? or we'll produce better products? In my company, there's no shortage of things to do, so I don't think we'll hire less people if suddenly engineers are a bit more productive. But who knows how it'll impact the industry as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I do async video interviews in round 1 of my interview process in order to narrow the candidate funnel. Candidates get a question at the start of the interview, with a series of things to work through in their own IDE while sharing their screen. I review all recordings (though I will skip around, and if candidates don't get very far I won't spend a lot of time watching at 1x speed.) The question as laid out enco…
So you’re not _interviewing_ them, you’re having them complete expensive work-sample tests. And your evaluation metric is “completes lots of steps in a small time box.”
Each to their own and maybe their method works out, but it does seem whack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the subtle mistakes that get introduced in strings for example that then take me all the time I saved to fix.
Do you have an example of this?
I recently used Claude with something along the lines of “Ruby on rails 8, Hotwire, stimulus, turbo, show me how to do client side validations that don’t require a page refresh”
I am new to prompt engineering so feel free to critique. Anyway, it generated a stimulus controller called validations_controller.js and then proceeded to print out all of the remaining connected files but in all of them it referred to the string “validation” not “validations”. The solution it provided worked great and did exactly what I wanted to (though I expected a turbo frame based solution not a stimulus solution, but whatever it did what I asked it to do) with the exception of having to change all of the places where it put the string “validation” where it needed to put “validations” to match the name it used in the provided stimulus controller.