I thought this was going to be about the Comics Code Authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority I know this is hacker news but you do get all sorts posted here, that's my excuse.
You weren't the only one.
Comic Code Reviews
31–37 of 37 posts
Re: Comic Code Reviews
#32In the same way that many people would rather read imperfect ESL than LLM text, I would rather you draw stick figures yourself. The fact that this is a product of AI means anything I see in it may be 'hallucinated' or otherwise incorrect.
Re: Comic Code Reviews
#33I’ve been experimenting with a way to make code reviews more understandable - turning tricky pull requests into short comic strips. The blog post shows an example generated from a real PR: summarizing the changes, anthropomorphizing the components, and making the flow visually obvious. It’s meant to help reviewers grasp intent quickly and make reviews a bit more fun. Curious whether others have tried visual or narrat…
Isn't the first picture already misleading?
As far as I know, the order of hook calls is important to link them to the correct components: the important point of the linked list is not the ordering of built-in hooks depending ob name.
Although it's true that useEffect runs code after render. The picture places useReducer after useEffect, which would not even make sense in this interpretation?
Could be that I'm misremembering details, but I find it more interesting to read, for example, a good description, when a PR is large, dense, or hard to understand.
In the case of hooks, this blog post was good:
https://overreacted.io/why-do-hooks-rely-on-call-order/
I'm not sure whether the explanation in the picture is useful to anyone who doesn't already know the information.
Same issue with most AI-generated doc-blocks I've seem, often misleading, or explaining the obvious, instead of the "why".
Re: Comic Code Reviews
#34I thought this was going to be about the Comics Code Authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority I know this is hacker news but you do get all sorts posted here, that's my excuse.
[dead]
Re: Comic Code Reviews
#35I thought this was going to be about the Comics Code Authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority I know this is hacker news but you do get all sorts posted here, that's my excuse.
Meanwhile I've been watching a lot of standup lately and so my brain went to "video of person roasting the code review process".
I would suspect there's lots of overlap between the comic book collector/reader and hacker demographics anyway.
Re: Comic Code Reviews
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this kind of slop has negative value. It's unclear how much of the information in the comic is hallucinated, and the malformed code "for i = i1+|>" and nonsense text "(starts write hooks!" doesn't bode well.
Definitely still needs a "human in the loop." I don't know if this particular comic was cherry-picked or if it was the first one generated by Nano-Banana Pro, but either way, it's still got plenty of messy typos. RULES OF HOORS? Updste #2: setState Starts wite hooks!
>Definitely still needs a "human in the loop."
At which point I feel like I would rather the human have invested their time into writing a design doc that we could discuss well before they submitted a PR.
Re: Comic Code Reviews
#37It seems to me the level this comic is at is such that anyone who needs an aid like this would not be capable of providing a meaningful review on the pull request. If the goal is to encourage rubber-stamping by bystanders, it might help.
It's valuable to make a difficult task easier, even for those who could do the task without the help.
Is it making it easier? I feel like having to parse a comic like this is more cognitively demanding than just RTFCode, and I'd still have to review the code afterward to confirm its accuracy and whether the approach is sensical.