31–40 of 91 posts
"It writes 100% of our code" - Silently closes the tab, and makes a remark to avoid given software at any cost.
> In Elixir tests, each test runs in a database transaction that rolls back at the end. Tests run async without hitting each other. No test data persists. And it confuses Claude. This way of running tests is also what Rails does, and AFAIK Django too. Tests are isolated and can be run in random order. Actually, Rails randomizes the order so if the are tests that for any reason depend on the order of execution, they w…
Why not just write to the db? Just make every test independent, use uuids / random ids for ids.
Async or mildly complex thread stuff is like kryptonite for LLMs.
It's the second time today when I see that the higher number of LoC is served as something positive. I would put it strictly in "Ugly" category. I understand the business logic that says that as long as you can vibe code away from any problems, what's the point of even looking at the code.
It's the second time today when I see that the higher number of LoC is served as something positive. I would put it strictly in "Ugly" category. I understand the business logic that says that as long as you can vibe code away from any problems, what's the point of even looking at the code.
> In Elixir tests, each test runs in a database transaction that rolls back at the end. Tests run async without hitting each other. No test data persists. And it confuses Claude. This way of running tests is also what Rails does, and AFAIK Django too. Tests are isolated and can be run in random order. Actually, Rails randomizes the order so if the are tests that for any reason depend on the order of execution, they w…
I did too, and I've had a challenging time convincing people outside of those ecosystems that this is possible, reasonable, we've been doing it for over a decade.
It's the second time today when I see that the higher number of LoC is served as something positive. I would put it strictly in "Ugly" category. I understand the business logic that says that as long as you can vibe code away from any problems, what's the point of even looking at the code.
[flagged]
Just in case not, consider whether the short function
def is_even(x):
return (x%2) == 0
def is_even(x):
if x == 0:
return True
if x == 2:
return True
if x == 4:
return True
...
return FalseIt's the second time today when I see that the higher number of LoC is served as something positive. I would put it strictly in "Ugly" category. I understand the business logic that says that as long as you can vibe code away from any problems, what's the point of even looking at the code.
[flagged]
Why would I ever want a language with less capabilities?
It's the second time today when I see that the higher number of LoC is served as something positive. I would put it strictly in "Ugly" category. I understand the business logic that says that as long as you can vibe code away from any problems, what's the point of even looking at the code.
[flagged]
https://genius.com/Jorge-luis-borges-on-exactitude-in-scienc...
> In Elixir tests, each test runs in a database transaction that rolls back at the end. Tests run async without hitting each other. No test data persists. And it confuses Claude. This way of running tests is also what Rails does, and AFAIK Django too. Tests are isolated and can be run in random order. Actually, Rails randomizes the order so if the are tests that for any reason depend on the order of execution, they w…
Why not just write to the db? Just make every test independent, use uuids / random ids for ids.
That's easier said than done. Simple example: API that returns a count of all users in the database. The obvious correct implementation that will work would be just to `select count(*) from users`. But if some other test touches users table beforehand, it won't work. There is no uuid to latch onto here.