111–120 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a similar review by AI except my equivalent of setSomeData was stateful and needed to be there in both places, the AI just didn't understand any of it.
When this happens to me it makes me question my design. If the AI doesn’t understand it, chances are it’s counter-intuitive. Of course not all LLM’s are equal, etc, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naming comments can be very useful in code that gets read by a lot of people. It can make the process of understanding the code much quicker. On the other hand, if it's less important code or the renaming is not clearly an improvement it can be quite useless. But I've met some developers who has the opinion of reviews as pointless and just say "this works, just approve it already" which can be very frustrating when i…
> Naming comments can be very useful in code that gets read by a lot of people. It can make the process of understanding the code much quicker. yes but it can be severely diminishing returns. Like lets step back a second and ask ourselves if: var itemCount = items.Count; vs var numberOfItems = items.Count; is ever worth spending the time discussing, versus how much of a soft improvement it makes to the code base. I'v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Naming comments can be very useful in code that gets read by a lot of people. It can make the process of understanding the code much quicker. yes but it can be severely diminishing returns. Like lets step back a second and ask ourselves if: var itemCount = items.Count; vs var numberOfItems = items.Count; is ever worth spending the time discussing, versus how much of a soft improvement it makes to the code base. I'v…
Sorry for the dumb question, is the second version actually better than the first? Because I prefer the first. But perhaps you chose this as a particularly annoying/unuseful comment
I still think any business that is based on someone else's model is worthless. I know I'm sounding like the 'dropbox is just FTP' guy, but it really feels like that any good idea will just be copied by OpenAI and Anthropic. If AI code review is proven a good idea is there any reason to expect Codex or Claude Code to not implement some commands to do code review?
Those tools are better than vanilla agents by dedicating expensive human time on evaluating and fine tuning models. You can also build various integration, management and reporting features to add value. If you freeze model progress today, or 12 months ago when most of those companies started, it's a viable business I think.
But any gains you make on the first part will be lost to newer models, and the 2nd part is not as valuable when llms allow people to build fairly complicated features quickly.
I don't if worthless but all those companies have very limited time to gather customers and at least make themselves valuable for an acquisition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Naming comments can be very useful in code that gets read by a lot of people. It can make the process of understanding the code much quicker. yes but it can be severely diminishing returns. Like lets step back a second and ask ourselves if: var itemCount = items.Count; vs var numberOfItems = items.Count; is ever worth spending the time discussing, versus how much of a soft improvement it makes to the code base. I'v…
Sorry for the dumb question, is the second version actually better than the first? Because I prefer the first. But perhaps you chose this as a particularly annoying/unuseful comment
Sort of place that is fussy about test naming so where I would do smth like:
TestSearchCriteriaWhere
they'd want
Test_That_Where_Clauses_In_Search_Criteria_Work
I think its a waste of typing but idk, I'm willing to let it slide because I think its a pointless hill to die on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry for the dumb question, is the second version actually better than the first? Because I prefer the first. But perhaps you chose this as a particularly annoying/unuseful comment
They’re both equally bad to me, I don’t see the improvement over just using item.count. I may be nitpicking a toy example though.
var relevantCount = items.Where(x => x.SomeValue > 5);
vs
var numberOfRelevantItems = items.Where(x => x.SomeValue > 5);
so it wasn't necessarily cheap enough to want to repeat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human comments tend to be short and sweet like "nit: rename creatorOfWidgets to widgetFactory". Whereas AI code review comments are long winded not as precise. So even if there are 20 humans comments, I can easily see which are important and which aren't.
it "nit" short for nitpick? I think prefixing PR comments with prefixes like that is very helpful for dealing with this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the signal to noise ratio is poor Nail on the head. Every time I've seen it applied, its awful at this. However this is the one thing I loathe in human reviews as well, where people are leaving twenty comments about naming and then the actual FUNCTIONAL issue is just inside all of that mess. A good code reviewer knows how to just drop all the things that irk them and hyperfocus on what matters, if there's a fun…
Yeah or worse like my boss. We don't have a style guide. But he always wants style changes in every PR, and those style changes are some times contradictory across different PRs. Eventually I've told him "if your comment does not affect performance or business logic, I'm ignoring it". He finally got the message. The fact that he accepted this tells me that deep down he knew his comments were just bike shedding.
> As the proprietors of an, er, AI code review tool suddenly beset by an avalanche of competition, we're asking ourselves: what makes us different?
> Human engineers should be focused only on two things - coming up with brilliant ideas for what should exist, and expressing their vision and taste to agents that do the cruft of turning it all into clean, performant code.
> If there is ambiguity at any point, the agents Slack the human to clarify.
Was this LLM advertisement generated by an LLM? Feels so at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People more often say that to save face by implying the issue you identified would be reasonable for the author to miss because it's subtle or tricky or whatever. It's often a proxy for embarrassment
When mature, funtional adults say it, the read is "wow, I would have missed that, good job, you did better than me". Reading embarrassment into that is extremely childish and disrespectful.