There are kind of a lot of errors in this piece. For instance, the problem the author had with Gemini CLI running out of tokens in ten minutes is what happens when you don’t set up (a free) API key in your environment.
The current state of LLM-driven development
41–50 of 244 posts
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#42"LLMs won’t magically make you deliver production-ready code" Either I'm extremely lucky or I was lucky to find the guy who said it must all be test driven and guided by the usual principles of DRY etc. Claude Code works absolutely fantastically nine out of 10 times and when it doesn't we just roll back the three hours of nonsense it did postpone this feature or give it extra guidance.
I'm beginning to suspect robust automated tests may be one of the single strongest indicators for if you're going to have a good time with LLM coding agents or not.
If there's a test suite for the thing to run it's SO much less likely to break other features when it's working. Plus it can read the tests and use them to get a good idea about how everything is supposed to work already.
Telling Claude to write the test first, then execute it and watch it fail, then write the implementation has been giving me really great results.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#43Deeply curious to know if this is an outlier opinion, a mainstream but pessimistic one, or the general consensus. My LinkedIn feed and personal network certainly suggests that it's an outlier, but I wonder if the people around me are overly optimistic or out of synch with what the HN community is experiencing more broadly.
Which part of the opinion? I tend to strongly agree with the "unpopular opinion" about the IDEs mentioned versus CLI (specifically, aider.chat and Claude Code). Assuming (this is key) you have mastery of the language and framework you're using, working with the CLI tool in 25 year old XP practices is an incredible accelerant. Caveats: - You absolutely must bring taste and critical thinking, as the LLM has neither. -…
> use repomap tools on dependencies if creating new code that leverages those dependencies, and have that in context for that work.
It seems to me that currently there are 2 schools of thought:
1. Use repomap and/or LSP to help the models navigate the code base
2. Let the models figure things out with grep
Personally, I am 100% a grep guy, and my editor doesn't even have LSP enabled. So, it is very interesting to see how many of these agentic tools do exactly the same thing.
And Claude Code /init is a great feature that basically writes down the current mental model after the initial round of grep.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#44Learning how to use LLMs in a coding workflow is trivial. There is no learning curve. You can safely ignore them if they don’t fit your workflows at the moment. I have never heard anybody successfully using LLMs say this before. Most of what I've learned from talking to people about their workflows is counterintuitive and subtle. It's a really weird way to open up an article concluding that LLMs make one a worse prog…
> Learning how to use LLMs in a coding workflow is trivial. There is no learning curve. You can safely ignore them if they don’t fit your workflows at the moment.
That's a wild statement. I'm now extremely productive with LLMs in my core codebases, but it took a lot of practice to get it right and repeatable. There's a lot of little contextual details you need to learn how to control so the LLM makes the right choices.
Whenever I start working in a new code base, it takes a a non-trivial amount of time to ramp back up to full LLM productivity.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#45Learning how to use LLMs in a coding workflow is trivial. There is no learning curve. You can safely ignore them if they don’t fit your workflows at the moment. I have never heard anybody successfully using LLMs say this before. Most of what I've learned from talking to people about their workflows is counterintuitive and subtle. It's a really weird way to open up an article concluding that LLMs make one a worse prog…
> Learning how to use LLMs in a coding workflow is trivial. There is no learning curve. You can safely ignore them if they don’t fit your workflows at the moment. That's a wild statement. I'm now extremely productive with LLMs in my core codebases, but it took a lot of practice to get it right and repeatable. There's a lot of little contextual details you need to learn how to control so the LLM makes the right choice…
> That's a wild statement. I'm now extremely productive with LLMs in my core codebases, but it took a lot of practice to get it right and repeatable. There's a lot of little contextual details you need to learn how to control so the LLM makes the right choices.
> Whenever I start working in a new code base, it takes a a non-trivial amount of time to ramp back up to full LLM productivity.
Do you find that these details translate between models? Sounds like it doesn't translate across codebases for you?
I have mostly moved away from this sort of fine-tuning approach because of experience a while ago around OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 and 4. Extra work on my end necessary with the older model wasn't with the new one, and sometimes counterintuitively caused worse performance by pointing it at what the way I'd do it vs the way it might have the best luck with. ESPECIALLY for the sycophantic models which will heavily index on "if you suggested that this thing might be related, I'll figure out some way to make sure it is!"
So more recently I generally stick to the "we'll handle a lot of the prompt nitty gritty" for you IDE or CLI agent stuff, but I find they still fall apart with large complex codebases and also that the tricks don't translate across codebases.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#46LLM driven coding can yield awesome results, but you will be typing a lot and, as article states, requires already well structured codebase. I recently started with fresh project, and until I got to the desired structure I only used AI to ask questions or suggestions. I organized and written most of the code. Once it started to get into the shape that felt semi-permanent to me, I started a lot of queries like: ``` -…
My workflow with a medium sized iOS codebase is a bit like that. By the time everything works and is up to my standards, I‘ve usually taken longer, or almost as long, as if I‘d written everything manually. That’s with Opus-only Claude Code. It’s complicated stuff (structured concurrency and lots of custom AsyncSequence operators) which maybe CC just isn‘t suitable for.
Whipping up greenfield projects is almost magical, of course. But that’s not most of my work.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#47> Claude 4 Sonnet
> Or 4.1 Opus if you are a millionaire and want to pollute as much possible
That was an unnecessary guilt-shaming remark.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#48Learning how to use LLMs in a coding workflow is trivial. There is no learning curve. You can safely ignore them if they don’t fit your workflows at the moment. I have never heard anybody successfully using LLMs say this before. Most of what I've learned from talking to people about their workflows is counterintuitive and subtle. It's a really weird way to open up an article concluding that LLMs make one a worse prog…
> I have never heard anybody successfully using LLMs say this before. Most of what I've learned from talking to people about their workflows is counterintuitive and subtle. Because for all our posturing about being skeptical and data driven we all believe in magic. Those "counterintuitive non-trivial workflows"? They work about as well as just prompting "implement X" with no rules, agents.md, careful lists etc. Becau…
The problem with your argument here is that you're effectively saying that developers (like myself) who put effort into figuring out good workflows for coding with LLMs are deceiving themselves, and are effectively wasting their time.
Either I've wasted significant chunks of the past ~3 years of my life or you're missing something here. Up to you to decide which you believe.
I agree that it's hard to take solid measurements due to non-determinism. The same goes for managing people, and yet somehow many good engineering managers can judge if their team is performing well and figure out what levers they can pull to help them perform better.
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#49There’s an IntelliJ extension for GitHub CoPilot. It’s not perfect but it’s okay.
Yeah for my uses it works fine. Not sure why OP thinks Copilot Chat doesn't exist anywhere but VSCode...
Re: The current state of LLM-driven development
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have never heard anybody successfully using LLMs say this before. Most of what I've learned from talking to people about their workflows is counterintuitive and subtle. Because for all our posturing about being skeptical and data driven we all believe in magic. Those "counterintuitive non-trivial workflows"? They work about as well as just prompting "implement X" with no rules, agents.md, careful lists etc. Becau…
The problem with your argument here is that you're effectively saying that developers (like myself) who put effort into figuring out good workflows for coding with LLMs are deceiving themselves, and are effectively wasting their time. Either I've wasted significant chunks of the past ~3 years of my life or you're missing something here. Up to you to decide which you believe. I agree that it's hard to take solid measu…
Another problem with it is that you could have said the same thing about virtually any advancement in programming over the last 30 years.