101–110 of 483 posts
I don't know why anyone uses Electron anymore, Tauri produces much smaller binaries and is amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't Claude doing QA testing for you?
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but if not, you cant rely on the thing that produced invalid output to validate it's own output. That is fundementally insufficient, despite it potentially catching some errors.
When it comes to code review, though, it can be a good idea to pit multiple models against each other. I've relied on that trick from day 1.
Because Anthropic has never claimed that code is free? It's pretty easy to argue your point if you pick a strawman as your opponent. They have said that you can be significantly more productive (which seems to be the case for many) and that most of their company primarily uses LLM to write code and no longer write it by hand. They also seems to be doing well w.r.t. competition. There are legitimate complaints to be m…
Head of Claude Code at Anthropic 3 days ago: "Coding is largely solved" https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/head-of-claude-code-what-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but if not, you cant rely on the thing that produced invalid output to validate it's own output. That is fundementally insufficient, despite it potentially catching some errors.
What if "the thing" is a human and another human validating the output. Is that its own output (= that of a human) or not? Doesn't this apply to LLMs - you do not review the code within the same session that you used to generate the code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but if not, you cant rely on the thing that produced invalid output to validate it's own output. That is fundementally insufficient, despite it potentially catching some errors.
Damn. Guess I'll stop QAing my own work from now.
Because code isn't free. I can see it in my team. We've all been using Claude a lot for the last 6 months. It's hard to measure the impact, but I can tell our systems are as buggy as ever. AI isn't a silver bullet.
Why isn't Claude doing QA testing for you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but if not, you cant rely on the thing that produced invalid output to validate it's own output. That is fundementally insufficient, despite it potentially catching some errors.
What if "the thing" is a human and another human validating the output. Is that its own output (= that of a human) or not? Doesn't this apply to LLMs - you do not review the code within the same session that you used to generate the code?
This post and this entire thread are HN-sniping to the millionth degree. We have all the classics here: - AI bad - JavaScript bad - Developers not understanding why Electron has utility because they don't understand the browser as a fourth OS platform - Electron eats my ram oh no posted from my 2gb thinkpad