41–50 of 341 posts
A broken test doesn’t make the agentic coding tool go “ooooh I made a bad assumption” any more than a type error or linter does
All a broken test does it prompt me to prompt back “fix tests”
I have no clue which one broke or why or what was missed, and it doesnt matter. Actual regressions are different and not dependent on these tests, and I follow along from type errors and LLM observability
Take a guitar, for example. You don't industrialize the manufacture of guitars by speeding up the same practices that artisans used to build them. You don't create machines that resemble individual artisans in their previous roles (like everyone seems to be trying to do with AI and software). You become Leo Fender, and you design a new kind of guitar that is made to be manufactured at another level of scale magnitude. You need to be Leo Fender though (not a talented guitarrist, but definitely a technical master).
To me, it sounds too early to describe patterns, since we haven't met the Ford/Fender/etc equivalent of this yet. I do appreciate the attempt though.
I dont currently have confidence in TDD A broken test doesn’t make the agentic coding tool go “ooooh I made a bad assumption” any more than a type error or linter does All a broken test does it prompt me to prompt back “fix tests” I have no clue which one broke or why or what was missed, and it doesnt matter. Actual regressions are different and not dependent on these tests, and I follow along from type errors and LL…
I've experimented with agentic coding/engineering a lot recently. My observation is that software that is easily tested are perfect for this sort of agentic loop. In one of my experiments I had the simple goal of "making Linux binaries smaller to download using better compression" [1]. Compression is perfect for this. Easily validated (binary -> compress -> decompress -> binary) so each iteration should make a dent o…
I dont currently have confidence in TDD A broken test doesn’t make the agentic coding tool go “ooooh I made a bad assumption” any more than a type error or linter does All a broken test does it prompt me to prompt back “fix tests” I have no clue which one broke or why or what was missed, and it doesnt matter. Actual regressions are different and not dependent on these tests, and I follow along from type errors and LL…
I dont currently have confidence in TDD A broken test doesn’t make the agentic coding tool go “ooooh I made a bad assumption” any more than a type error or linter does All a broken test does it prompt me to prompt back “fix tests” I have no clue which one broke or why or what was missed, and it doesnt matter. Actual regressions are different and not dependent on these tests, and I follow along from type errors and LL…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was the last time you tried? I think trying agents to do larger tasks was always very hit or miss, up to about the end of last year. In the past couple of months I have found them to have gotten a lot better (and I'm not the only one). My experience with what coding assistants are good for shifted from: smart autocomplete -> targeted changes/additions -> full engineering
I’m not OP but every time I post a comment with this sentiment I get told “the latest models are what you need”. If every 3 months you are saying “it’s ready as long as you use the latest model”, then it wasn’t ready 3 months ago and it’s not likely to be ready now. To answer your question, I’ve tried both Claude code and Antigravity in the last 2 weeks and I’m still finding them struggling. AG with Gemini regularly…
I think it can (and is) shifting very rapidly. Everyone is different, and I’m sure models are better at different types of work (or styles of working), but it doesn’t take much to make it too frustrating to use. Which also means it doesn’t take much to make it super useful.
Yesterday I wrote a post about exactly this. Software development, as the act of manually producing code, is dying. A new discipline is being born. It is much closer to proper engineering. Like an engineer overseeing the construction of a bridge, the job is not to lay bricks. It is to ensure the structure does not collapse. The marginal cost of code is collapsing. That single fact changes everything. https://nonstruc…
https://www.slater.dev/2025/09/its-time-to-license-software-...
I use AI in my workflow mostly for simple boilerplate, or to troubleshoot issues/docs. I've dipped into agentic work now and again, but never been very impressed with the output (well, that there is any functioning output is insanely impressive, but it isn't code I want to be on the hook for complaining). I hear a lot of people saying the same, but similarly a bunch of people I respect saying they barely write code a…
In my experience, this heavily depends on the task, and there's a massive chasm between tasks where it's a good and bad fit. I can definitely imagine people working only on one side of this chasm and being perplexed by the other side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was the last time you tried? I think trying agents to do larger tasks was always very hit or miss, up to about the end of last year. In the past couple of months I have found them to have gotten a lot better (and I'm not the only one). My experience with what coding assistants are good for shifted from: smart autocomplete -> targeted changes/additions -> full engineering
I’m not OP but every time I post a comment with this sentiment I get told “the latest models are what you need”. If every 3 months you are saying “it’s ready as long as you use the latest model”, then it wasn’t ready 3 months ago and it’s not likely to be ready now. To answer your question, I’ve tried both Claude code and Antigravity in the last 2 weeks and I’m still finding them struggling. AG with Gemini regularly…