71–80 of 209 posts
The code review feature seems too expensive to run on every PR automatically (to me): $0.75 per 100 lines of code. From their example pricing: "if you have a typical pull request with 500 lines of code, it would only cost $3.75 to run CodeGuru Reviewer on it." I wonder if it's actually good enough to justify that price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s incredibly cheap, assuming it provides good suggestions. How much time does it take you to review 500 lines of code change, and what’s your time worth? If it takes 10 minutes and your time is worth about $20/hour or more, this service will part for itself immediately.
Our code reviews are far more "is this the right way to solve the problem?" than "hey, you never use that variable you declared." The latter would be picked up by our linter; I'm having a hard time seeing the value proposition here. >It’s like having a distinguished engineer on call, 24x7 I don't believe that, regardless of how many times they sprinkle in the words "machine" and "learning".
The code review feature seems too expensive to run on every PR automatically (to me): $0.75 per 100 lines of code. From their example pricing: "if you have a typical pull request with 500 lines of code, it would only cost $3.75 to run CodeGuru Reviewer on it." I wonder if it's actually good enough to justify that price.
“Time to hire some code golfers, we’ll put the whole app into one line of code.”
Next step is to provide automated fixes. I've have a side project that does it for Go source code: https://fixmie.com (have plans for other languages and protocols). But due my Visa situation here in the US (H1B), I'll be never able to monetize it as it's illegal to have a side income. But I think this is just the start and there is an huge opportunity for new startups and projects.
It is not impossible for you to earn second income on H1-B, it's just that the secondary source would need its on visa petition. DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney. More importantly, I am not your attorney. The above is not legal advice. If you desire legal advice, consult a competent, licensed attorney in your area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a good incentive not to be generating thousands of lines of codes with each PR, which most would probably consider a feature as opposed to a bug.
exactly. IMO if you're generating code, it should happen at build/compile time not at checkin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or a 35,000 line XML configuration file.
Now that I think of it, if it's paid by lines of code, it perversely incentives people to minimize the lines of code, no? Does it count white space and comments? Can I minify my code before passing it to this, then unminify it?
If you squint this looks like a baby step towards computers writing code.
Not even close. We'll have to nail down how to write unambiguous design specifications in a format that the AI can consume, first.
Code review is not linter. Code review is a chance to discuss design, scaling, trade-offs and mentor others. I don't think this solution will offer it.
Trade offs sure but design and scaling need to be considered _before_ the code review. Maybe an architecture review of sorts? Once you hit code review it's a little too late to reconsider design and scale unless it's a serious issue.
> mentor others
Mentoring is mostly outside of a code review. Sure it can help with that but I don't think that really counts. IMO anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our code reviews are far more "is this the right way to solve the problem?" than "hey, you never use that variable you declared." The latter would be picked up by our linter; I'm having a hard time seeing the value proposition here. >It’s like having a distinguished engineer on call, 24x7 I don't believe that, regardless of how many times they sprinkle in the words "machine" and "learning".
I'd be very surprised if the service they've announced is a linter. The announcement says it can even analyze parts your code that are more computationally expensive than they need to be. I'm not sure I understand the skepticism--surely they have among the largest code repositories in the world. Why couldn't they train models on it to look at best practices and even compare code practices to different metrics.