641–650 of 652 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Company that builds x says that everyone in company uses x. Have people always been this easy to market to?
I know these people lol, they are better coders than you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had my first interview last week where I finally saw this in the wild. It was a student applying for an internship. It was the strangest interview. They had excellent textbook knowledge. They could tell you the space and time complexities of any data structure, but they couldn't explain anything about code they'd written or how it worked. After many painful and confusing minutes of trying to get them to explain, li…
This the kind of interaction that makes be think that there are only 2 possible futures: Star Trek or Idiocracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Programming with AI is like tutoring a child. You teach the child, tell it where it made mistakes and you keep iterating and monitoring the child until it makes what you want. Who are you people who spend so much time writing code that this is a significant productivity boost? I'm imagining doing this with an actual child and how long it would take for me to get a real return on investment at my job. Nevermind that…
Here's an example: I recently inherited an over decade old web project full of EOL'd libraries and OS packages that desperately needed to be modernized. Within 3 hours I had a working test suite with 80% code coverage on core business functionality (~300 tests). Now - maybe the tests aren't the best designs given there is no way I could review that many tests in 3 hours, but I know empirically that they cover a major…
> Not only does an agent not have the ability to evolve a specification over a multi-week period as it builds out its lower components, it also makes decisions upfront that it later doesn’t deviate from. That's your job. The great thing about coding agents is that you can tell them "change of design: all API interactions need to go through a new single class that does authentication and retries and rate-limit throttl…
> (And the automated test suite will help them confirm that the refactoring worked properly, because naturally you had them construct an automated test suite when they built those original features, right?) I dunno, maybe I have high standards but I generally find that the test suites generated by LLMs are both over and under determined. Over-determined in the sense that some of the tests are focused on implementatio…
Claude writes a bunch of new code and I’ll tell it, “Before I review this code, make sure all tests adhere to the guidance of @tests.md” (you can probably make this a slash command too)
I find that if I put these instructions in the system prompt, far down in a conversation that’s used lots of the context window, they will only loosely be followed. But when I tag it in like this, Claude will strongly and thoughtfully follow the guidance and examples I’ve written up about how I want my tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wtf are you talking about. Great programmers use LLMs for complex tasks. That was the point of my comment
And my point is that what you think are complex tasks are not really complex. The simple case is that if you ask an agent to do a whole bunch of modifications across a large number of files, it often loses context due to context windows. Now, you can make your own agents with custom mcp servers to basically improve its ability to do tasks, but then you are basically just building automation tools in the first place.
I can certainly see how you're better than every one of those people and how to you what they call "complex" is just simplistic. I've never met anyone great like you.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The article starts with: > you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed. That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an example: I recently inherited an over decade old web project full of EOL'd libraries and OS packages that desperately needed to be modernized. Within 3 hours I had a working test suite with 80% code coverage on core business functionality (~300 tests). Now - maybe the tests aren't the best designs given there is no way I could review that many tests in 3 hours, but I know empirically that they cover a major…
I code firmware for a heavily regulated medical device (where mistakes mean life and death), and I try to have AI write unit tests for me all the time, and I would say I spend about 3 days correcting and polishing what the AI gives me in 30 minutes. The first pass the AI gives me, likely saves a day of work, but you would have to be crazy to trust it blindly. I guarantee it is not giving you what you think it is or w…
I'm not having AI write tests for life-or-death software nor did I claim that AI wrote tests that all pass without updating any code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s usage patterns. It is you in a sense. You can’t deny the fact that someone like Ryan dhal creator of nodejs declared that he no longer writes code is objectively contrary to your own experience. Something is different. I think you and other deniers try one prompt and then they see the issues and stop. Programming with AI is like tutoring a child. You teach the child, tell it where it made mistakes and yo…
My personal suspicion is that the detractors value process and implementation details much more highly than results. That would not surprise me if you come from a business that is paid for its labor inputs and is focused on keeping a large team billable for as long as possible. But I think hackers and garage coders see the value of “vibing” as they are more likely to be the type of people who just want results and vi…
That's a massive generalization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It shouldn't be even a little surprising that your impression of the result is that the code is much better looking than the impression of a more experienced developer. This really is it: AI produces bad to mediocre code. To someone who produces terrible code mediocre is an upgrade, but to someone who produces good to excellent code, mediocre is a downgrade.
Today. It produces mediocre code today. That is really it. What is the quality of that code compared to 1 year ago. What will it be in 1 year? Opus 6.5 is inevitable.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The article starts with: > you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed. That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ di…
It helps to write out the prompt in a seperate text editor so you can edit it and try to desribe what the input is, and what output you want as well as try to describe and catch likely or iteratively observed issues. You try a gamut of sample inputs and observe where its going awry? Describe the error to it and see what it does