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

How I write software with LLMs

stavros.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 544 posts

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#51

Post by rurban »

PAndreew wrote: post #28
silisili wrote: post #10

I'm not sure the notion I keep seeing of "it's ok, we still architect, it just writes the code"(paraphrased) sits well with me. I've not tested it with architecting a full system, but assuming it isn't good at it today... it's only a matter of time. Then what is our use?

Others have already partially answered this, but here’s my 20 cents. Software development really is similar to architecture. The end result is an infrastructure of unique modules with different type of connectors (roads, grid, or APIs). Until now in SW dev the grunt work was done mostly by the same people who did the planning, decided on the type of connectors, etc. Real estate architects also use a bunch of software…

Since I worked as an architect some comments.

Architecture is fine for big, complex projects. Having everything planned out before keeps cost down, and ensures customer will not come with late changes. But if cost are expected to be low, and there's no customer, architecture is overkill. It's like making a movie without following the script line by line (watch Godard in Novelle Vague), or building it by yourself or by a non-architect. 2x faster, 10x cheaper. You immediately see an inflexible overarchitectured project.

You can do fine by restricting the agent with proper docs, proper tests and linters.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#52

Post by kybernetikos »

akhrail1996 wrote: post #22

Genuine question: what's the evidence that the architect → developer → reviewer pipeline actually produces better results than just... talking to one strong model in one session? The author uses different models for each role, which I get. But I run production agents on Opus daily and in my experience, if you give it good context and clear direction in a single conversation, the output is already solid. The ceremony…

There's a lot of cargo culting, but it's inevitable in a situation like this where the truth is model dependent and changing the whole time and people have created companies on the premise they can teach you how to use ai well.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#53

Post by exidex »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
jaredklewis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's the evidence What’s the evidence for anything software engineers use? Tests, type checkers, syntax highlighting, IDEs, code review, pair programming, and so on. In my experience, evidence for the efficacy of software engineering practices falls into two categories: - the intuitions of developers, based in their experiences. - scientific studies, which are unconvincing. Some are unconvincing because they atte…

The proper metric is the defect escape rate.

Now you have to count defects

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#55

Post by jacquesm »

exidex wrote: post #53
jacquesm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proper metric is the defect escape rate.

Now you have to count defects

You have to do that anyway, and in fact you probably were already doing that. If you do not track this then you are leaving a lot on the table.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#56

Post by mattmanser »

borski wrote: post #16
silisili wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the use of software eng/architect at that point? It's a tool, but one that product or C levels can use directly as I see it?

Yes, for building something But for building the right thing ? Doubtful. Most of a great engineer’s work isn’t writing code, but interrogating what people think their problems are, to find what the actual problems are. In short: problem solving, not writing code.

Where's this delusion come from recently that great engineers didnt write code?

What a load of crap.

All you're doing is describing a different job role.

What you're talking about is BA work, and a subset of engineers are great at it, but most are just ok.

You're claiming a part of the job that was secondary, and not required, is now the whole job.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#57

Post by kleiba »

I write very little code these days, so I've been following the AI development mostly from the backseat. One aspect I fail to grasp perfectly is what the practical differences are between CLI (so terminal-based) agents and ones fully integrated into an IDE.

Could someone chime in and give their opinion on what are the pros and cons of either approach?

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#58

Post by borski »

mattmanser wrote: post #56
borski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, for building something But for building the right thing ? Doubtful. Most of a great engineer’s work isn’t writing code, but interrogating what people think their problems are, to find what the actual problems are. In short: problem solving, not writing code.

Where's this delusion come from recently that great engineers didnt write code? What a load of crap. All you're doing is describing a different job role. What you're talking about is BA work, and a subset of engineers are great at it, but most are just ok. You're claiming a part of the job that was secondary, and not required, is now the whole job.

I never said great engineers didn’t write code. But writing the code was never the point.

The point has always been delivering the product to the customer, in any industry. Code is rarely the deliverable.

That’s my point.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#59

Post by codeflo »

est wrote: post #47
akhrail1996 wrote: post #22

Genuine question: what's the evidence that the architect → developer → reviewer pipeline actually produces better results than just... talking to one strong model in one session? The author uses different models for each role, which I get. But I run production agents on Opus daily and in my experience, if you give it good context and clear direction in a single conversation, the output is already solid. The ceremony…

> the architect → developer → reviewer pipeline actually produces better results than just... talking to one strong model in one session? There's a 63 pages paper with mathematical proof if you really into this. https://arxiv.org/html/2601.03220v1 My takeaway: AI learns from real-world texts, and real-world corpus are used to have a role split of architect/developer/reviewer

>> the architect → developer → reviewer pipeline actually produces better results than just... talking to one strong model in one session?

> There's a 63 page paper with mathematical proof if you really into this.

> https://arxiv.org/html/2601.03220v1

I'm confused. The linked paper is not primarily a mathematics paper, and to the extent that it is, proves nothing remotely like the question that was asked.

Post reply on HN