361–370 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copilot replacing intellisense is a huge shame. Why get actual auto complete when you can get completely hallucinated methods and properties instead.
Does it actually replace it? I can still get intellisense style suggestions on my ides (various jetbrains and visual studio) and it's still just as useful (what can this object do I wonder...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have both, and Perplexity is much more like a search engine than a chat companion (or at least that's how I use it). I like both, though.
You can select the model. I very much appreciate the Claude Sonnet models which are very good and rational discussion partners, responding to arguments in detail and critically, allowing for the dialectical exploration of complex topics. I have also experimented with other models including ChatGPT, Gemini or Grok, but the resulting discussions were only a fraction as useful (i.e. more optimized towards affirmative fe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, I'm challenging the metaphor. Working the trades isn't exercise - it's a grind that wears people out. If your job is just grinding out code in a stressful and soul-crushing manner, the issue lies elsewhere. You will be soon either grinding out prompts to create software you don't even understand anymore or you will be replaced by an agent. And by no way I'm implying you are part of the issue.
> If your job is just grinding out code in a stressful and soul-crushing manner, the issue lies elsewhere. The vast majority of developers are in or near this category. Most software developers never write code outside of education or employment and would avoid doing so if an AI provided the opportunity. Any opportunity to reduce cognitive load is welcome I think you don't recognise how much of an outlier you are in…
Some people just write code for 8 hours, go home and never think about it on their free time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30% of the articles on this forum are covert LLM advertising
Every single last link here is some form of an advertisement, why single out LLM-related ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I am paying $20, for a glorified code generator, that may or may not be correct, to write a small function that I can do for free, and be confident about the correctness, if I have not been lazy to implement a test for it. If you point out, with test it's also the same with any AI tool available, but to come to that result, I have to continuously prompt it till it gives me the desired output, while I may be able…
Your time isn't free, and I'd certainly with more than $20/month. I find it extremely useful as a smarter autocomplete, especially for the tedious work - changing function definitions, updating queries when DB schema changes, and writing http requests/api calls from vendor/library documentation.
None of the use-cases you mention requires LLM. Just available as IDE functionalities.
IntelliJ has LLM based auto complete, with which I am okay, But it still wrong too many times. Works extremely well with Rust. Their non-llm autocomplete is also superb, which uses ML for suggesting closest, relevant match, IIRC.
It also makes refactoring a breeze, I know what it's going to do exactly.
Also, it can handle database refactoring to a certain capacity! And for that it does not require LLM, so no nondeterministic behavior.
Also, the IDE have its own way of doing http requests, and it's really nice! But, I can use their live template to do autocomplete any boilerplate code. It only requires setting once. No need to fiddle with prompts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This changed my experience significantly: https://github.com/BeehiveInnovations/zen-mcp-server/blob/ma... It basically uses multiple different LLMs from different providers to debate a change or code review. Opus 4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-5 all have a go at it before it writes out plans or makes changes.
it's a lot faster and a lot easier and it gives you a much better understanding of the problem if you just think about the changes you want to make and write them yourself. why are you looking for a shortcut? just do the work.
It is faster, right now, to just write it myself; at least for most things. I definitely want to understand when and how that might change.
Judging from the downvotes, not everybody shares that curiosity.
Really? I'm not a coder but a sysadmin. 35 years or so. I'm conversant with Perl, Python, (nods to C), BASIC, shell, Powershell, AutoIT (int al) I muck about with CAD - OpenSCAD, FreeCAD, and 3D printing. I'm not a senior developer - I pay them. LLMs are handy in the same way I still have my slide rules and calculators (OK kids I use a calc app) but I do still have my slide rules. ChatGPT does quite well with the bas…
I just got back into OpenSCAD after recently getting my first new 3D Printer in 10 years, so I basically had to relearn it. ChatGPT got the syntax wrong for the most basic of operations.
My screwdrivers, drills, planes, and all the rest don't tell me how to use them and I think that you need to treat LLMs in the same way.
They can provide an insight or a prod or whatever that gets you over the line but I do not think that they are ... AI of any sort.
I can cut say 12mm of plywood with a panel saw within an accuracy of about 1mm if I am careless. If I take more care, I can do way better. Depends on the job. However, I have to keep my eye in.
Chat will get the basics right but will hallucinate badly when it comes to libraries like https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2/wiki
Just like a slightly blunt chisel, you have to treat Chat and co in the same way - they are tools. No more and no less. You need to know how to sharpen them up (oil and a whetstone).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you should have brought that up earlier instead of acting smug and burying the lede? It's also pretty telling that you didn't elaborate this further and kept your comment short. What you should have said is that some parameterized test generators do automated white box testing where they look at your code similar to a fuzzer and try to find the test cases automatically. Your first link is literally just setting…
> Maybe you should have brought that up earlier instead of acting smug and burying the lede? It's also pretty telling that you didn't elaborate this further and kept your comment short. I thought people were generally competent within the areas they discuss and are aware of the tooling within their preferred ecosystem. I apologize if that is not the case.
"With AI Assistant, you can generate unit tests for C# methods."
https://www.jetbrains.com/help/resharper/Generate_tests.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really ? I find myself thinking the opposite. My program always runs in debug mode, and when there's some issue I put a breakpoint, trigger it, and boom I can check what is wrong. I don't need to stop the program, insert a new line to print what i _guess_ is wrong, restart the program from scratch etc. Properly debugging my stack is probably one of the first things I setup because I find it way less tedious. Like, fo…
I imagine that it depends on the kind of software you are working on. I found debuggers helpful back when I was working on interactive GUI programs which had a lot of complex state, built in classic OOP style with lots of objects pointing at each other, but I have not done that sort of thing in a long time. In part, that's because I got seriously into functional programming, which left me with a much more rigorous ap…