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

If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

seangoedecke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#181

Post by aleph_minus_one »

KronisLV wrote: post #30
QuantumNoodle wrote: post #10

Code review is part of the job, but one of the least enjoyable parts. Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction. AI tools are helpful, but inherently increases the amount of code we have to review with more scrutiny than my colleagues because of how unpredictable - yet convincing - it can be. Why did we create tools that do the fun part and increase the non-fun part? Where are the "code-revie…

> Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction. Is it possible that this is just the majority and there’s plenty of folks that dislike actually starting from nothing and the endless iteration to make something that works, as opposed to have some sort of a good/bad baseline to just improve upon? I’ve seen plenty of people that are okay with picking up a codebase someone else wrote and working wit…

> I’ve seen plenty of people that are okay with picking up a codebase someone else wrote and working with the patterns and architecture in there BUT when it comes to them either needing to create new mechanisms in it or create an entirely new project/repo it’s like they hit a wall - part of it probably being friction, part not being familiar with it, as well as other reasons.

For me, it's exactly the opposite:

I love to build things from "nothing" (if I had the possibility, I would even like to write my own kernel that is written in a novel programming language developed by me :-) ).

On the other hand, when I pick up someone else's codebase, I nearly always (if it was not written by some insanely smart programmer) immediately find it badly written. In nearly al cases I tend to be right in my judgements (my boss agrees), but I am very sensitive to bad code, and often ask myself how the programmer who wrote the original code did not yet commit seppuku, considering how much of a shame the code is.

Thus: you can in my opinion only enjoy picking up a codebase someone else wrote if you are incredibly tolerant of bad code.

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#182

Post by yeasku »

ben_w wrote: post #157
yeasku wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple, Oracle or Nvidia did not get there following your way of thinking A race to the bottom leaves you like Boeing or Intel. Late stage capitalism is not a must.

Counterpoint: Juicero. Your list of winners are optimising for what the market cares about, exactly like the supermarkets (who are also mostly winners) are optimising for what the market cares about. For most people, for food specifically, that means "cheap". Unavoidably, because most people have less money than they'd like. Fancy food is rare treat for many. Apple software currently has a reputation for buggy UI; Or…

As you said Oracle wins money hiring more lawyers every day, not because each day they hire cheaper employees.

See, the only way is not a race to the bottom like all late stage capitalist claim.

What is your point?

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#183

Post by steelblueskies »

rsynnott wrote: post #23

This idea that you can get good results from a bad process as long as you have good quality control seems… dubious, to say the least. “Sure, it’ll produce endless broken nonsense, but as long as someone is checking, it’s fine.” This, generally, doesn’t really work. You see people _try_ it in industry a bit; have a process which produces a high rate of failures, catch them in QA, rework (the US car industry used to be…

Evolution via random mutation and selection.

Or more broadly, the existence of complex or any life.

Sure, it's not the way I would pick to do most things, but when your buzzword magical thinking so deep all that you have is a hammer, even if it doesn't look like a nail you will force your wage slaves to hammer it anyway until it works.

As to your other cases.. injection molded plastic parts for things like the spinning t bar spray arm in some dishwashers. Crap molds, pass to low wage or temp to razorblade fix by hand and box up. Personally worked such a temp job before, among others so yes that bad output manual qc and fix up abounds still.

And if we are talking high failure rates... see also chip binning and foundry yields in semiconductors.

Just have to look around to see the dubious seeming is more the norm.

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#184

Post by overfeed »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #76
rsynnott wrote: post #23

This idea that you can get good results from a bad process as long as you have good quality control seems… dubious, to say the least. “Sure, it’ll produce endless broken nonsense, but as long as someone is checking, it’s fine.” This, generally, doesn’t really work. You see people _try_ it in industry a bit; have a process which produces a high rate of failures, catch them in QA, rework (the US car industry used to be…

Right, this is the exact opposite of the best practices that Edward Deming helped develop in Japan, then brought to the west. Quality needs to come from the process, not the people. Choosing to use a process known to be flawed, then hoping that people will catch the mistakes, doesn't seem like a great idea if the goal is quality. The trouble is that LLMs can be used in many ways, but only some of those ways play to t…

> Management have fantasies of using AI for everything, having either failed to understand what it is good for, or failed to learn the lessons of Japan/Deming.

Third option: they want to automate all jobs before the competition does. Think of it as AWS, but for labor.

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#185

Post by overfeed »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #132
Jensson wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have built complex working mostly bug free products without code reviews so humans are not that flawed. With humans and code reviews now two humans looked at it. With LLM and code review of the LLM output now one human looked at it, so its not the same. LLM are still far from as reliable as humans or you could just tell the LLM to do code reviews and then it builds the entire complex product itself.

People have built complex bug free software without __formal__ code review. It's very rare to write complex bug free software without at least __informal__ code review, and it's luck, not skill.

Can't have a code review if you're coding solo[0], unless we are redefining the meaning of "code review" to the point of meaningless by including going over one's own code.

0. The dawn of video games had many titles with 1 person responsible for programming. This remains the case many indy games and small software apps and services. It's a skill that requires expertise and/or dedication.

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#186

Post by scuff3d »

coffeefirst wrote: post #176
scuff3d wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also nice for handling some little tasks that otherwise would have been just annoying enough for me to not do it. Small 5 or 6 line functions that I would have had to fiddle with for far longer to get right.

Totally. I have to watch it like a hawk though. I've had it get the logic backwards on trivial "copy paste this from from the docs" functions.

Oh yeah. Just this week I had it hallucinate random non-existent API calls and completely bungle fairly straightforward arguments.

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#188

Post by 300hoogen »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #145
Manfred wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reviewing code from less experienced or unmotivated people is also very taxing, both in a cognitive and emotional sense. It will never approach a really good level of quality because you just give up after 4 rounds of reviews on the same feature.

Except humans learn from your PR comments and in other interactions with more experienced people, and so inexperienced devs become experienced devs eventually. LLMs are not so trainable.

retarded take

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#189

Post by vrighter »

yen223 wrote: post #180
estimator7292 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a factory making injection molded plastic toys but instead of pumping out perfect parts 99.999% of the time, the machine gives you 50% and you have to pay people to pull out the bad ones from a full speed assembly line and hope no bad ones get through.

Is this not how microchips are made?

Chips can be and are tested automatically. It's not like there are people running beside a conveyor belt with a microscope. So no, it's not the same thing. One doesn't need people, while the other one does.

Also, a fab is intended to make fully functioning chips, which sometimes it fails to achieve. An LLM is NOT designed to give correct output, just plausible output. Again, not the same goal.

LLMs are an implementation of bogosort. But less efficient.

Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

#190

Post by dayjaby »

300hoogen wrote: post #188
EdwardDiego wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except humans learn from your PR comments and in other interactions with more experienced people, and so inexperienced devs become experienced devs eventually. LLMs are not so trainable.

retarded take

Can you elaborate or you call it a day after insulting?
Post reply on HN