Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

obryant.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#11

Post by leoedin »

steveBK123 wrote: post #8
gashad wrote: post #5

This reminds me of themes I recently saw in [Harness Engineering is not Enough: Why Software Factories Fail]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib5GBkD555M ) (Warning: the last 3 slides seem like an advertisement). One thing I liked is how Dex has a little graphic he glossed over showing software development is - 25% planning & aligning with other teams - 25% coding - 25% testing/verifying - 25% code review/rework One…

The other hard to measure part is that I see/hear a lot of LLM usage going towards dev work that was never prioritized before. Suddenly devs who were cranking out features with no interest in infrastructure are attacking giant refactors to make the code more understandable to the LLM. Other devs are using LLMs to build themselves quality of life SDLC tools completely separate from the core code base. Plenty of other…

The quality of my bash scripts is 100x what they used to be. Proper help messages, flag parsing, functions, internal variables, using sed all the time (I could never wrap my head around that).

Of course, the main issue is that they’re completely undebbugable now. My bash scripts used to be a sequential list of commands, now they’re 500 lines of variable laden functions.

Is my life any better? Dunno. But it’s satisfying (until there’s a bug)

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#12

Post by nevertoolate »

deergomoo wrote: post #6

> As for documentation, I've found this simple instruction to vastly improve LLMs' output: > Never write READMEs, docstrings, or comments. I will write those myself later. And yes, I really mean this. This is quite validating as I came to the exact same conclusion myself. We’re required to use an LLM for every task at work that touches code†, and I was really struggling to get Claude to stop with the long waffly comm…

> We’re required to use an LLM for every task at work that touches code

Why not just write the code in the prompt so LLM can paste it.

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#15

Post by troupo »

> Never write READMEs, docstrings, or comments.

I found that latest codes don't write comments in code by default. And when they do, they write stupid shit like "This was code that did X, it was now removed".

You have to explcitly prompt them to write comments in code. They are still useful for you, the user. But are arguably useful for the model, too, given how many of them (especially Claude) only reads small chunks of files. So I'd rather have code comments than it reproducing a picture from incomplete data.

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#16

Post by lazopm »

The way I see it you should calibrate the way you work with LLMs based on how confident you are on that specific area, and if it's your responsibility to own/understand it. Here's how it feels for me:

* Learning stage: 0.5x - 1x. I change my system prompt to teacher mode, taking the productivity hit for actually learning the system/tool pays off dividends later. I change my system prompt to "teacher mode" and slowly loosen it as I get more confident.

* Working-knowledge: 2x - 3x. Once I am ramped up enough I feel like I can get a decent productivity boost. Most of the time is spent at the planning stage. This is my mode for areas I don't really own or care about, just need to get work done.

* Mastered: 10x+ I have been doing web front end for 12+ years, I can quickly review plan/implementations and for my initial prompt I already know most of what I want built.

1x == my speed before AI

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#17

Post by nasretdinov »

leoedin wrote: post #11
steveBK123 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other hard to measure part is that I see/hear a lot of LLM usage going towards dev work that was never prioritized before. Suddenly devs who were cranking out features with no interest in infrastructure are attacking giant refactors to make the code more understandable to the LLM. Other devs are using LLMs to build themselves quality of life SDLC tools completely separate from the core code base. Plenty of other…

The quality of my bash scripts is 100x what they used to be. Proper help messages, flag parsing, functions, internal variables, using sed all the time (I could never wrap my head around that). Of course, the main issue is that they’re completely undebbugable now. My bash scripts used to be a sequential list of commands, now they’re 500 lines of variable laden functions. Is my life any better? Dunno. But it’s satisfyi…

> the main issue is that they’re completely undebbugable now

Well, that means the quality actually dropped then :). Looking impressive isn't equal to quality, understandability and reliability is

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#18

Post by move-on-by »

steveBK123 wrote: post #8
gashad wrote: post #5

This reminds me of themes I recently saw in [Harness Engineering is not Enough: Why Software Factories Fail]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib5GBkD555M ) (Warning: the last 3 slides seem like an advertisement). One thing I liked is how Dex has a little graphic he glossed over showing software development is - 25% planning & aligning with other teams - 25% coding - 25% testing/verifying - 25% code review/rework One…

The other hard to measure part is that I see/hear a lot of LLM usage going towards dev work that was never prioritized before. Suddenly devs who were cranking out features with no interest in infrastructure are attacking giant refactors to make the code more understandable to the LLM. Other devs are using LLMs to build themselves quality of life SDLC tools completely separate from the core code base. Plenty of other…

Just one more data point but this is what I’m seeing too. The extreme ‘ruthless’ prioritization has stopped and devs (who want it) have breathing room to make the enhancements they’ve been wanting all along. Turns out what is good for AI is also good for regular old school SDLC. All you have to do is say it will make AI more effective.

Re: 2x, not 10x: coding with LLMs in 2026

#20

Post by openasocket »

deergomoo wrote: post #6

> As for documentation, I've found this simple instruction to vastly improve LLMs' output: > Never write READMEs, docstrings, or comments. I will write those myself later. And yes, I really mean this. This is quite validating as I came to the exact same conclusion myself. We’re required to use an LLM for every task at work that touches code†, and I was really struggling to get Claude to stop with the long waffly comm…

+10, I can't stand AI-generated comments. Half the time they are paragraph-length translations of every 5 lines of code into English prose, or just regurgitating whatever prompt they were given. When they actually try making high level comments they are worse than useless. It's really hard to put into words exactly why. It's something about how they are very verbose, but at the same time vague and stated in a slightly-off manner. Or they will introduce new terminology not reflected in the code's nomenclature, sometimes terms that are just synonyms for terms that the code already uses. Something about it makes me instantly distrustful of any information the comment may actually convey.
Post reply on HN