81–90 of 122 posts
It's much more than a simple Ralph loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to call it out as bullshit, you can't dig out "what you like" from "hundreds agents running all the time".
One of our projects has 1.2K open pull requests. https://i.postimg.cc/Jnfk9b8g/Xnapper-2026-02-28-22-25-42.pn... We probably accept 1-2 per day. I personally discard code for the tiniest of reasons. If something feels off moments after I open the PR, it gets deleted. The reason we still have 1.2K open PRs is because we can't review all of them in time. The most likely solution is to delete all of them after a month o…
software engineering is still software engineering. just because you don't type out the characters doesn't mean you're not designing systems and thinking critically and leveraging your experience. also: do we think this is written by ai? do we care anymore?
software engineering is still software engineering. just because you don't type out the characters doesn't mean you're not designing systems and thinking critically and leveraging your experience. also: do we think this is written by ai? do we care anymore?
On the surface level, I find it a bit disrespectful when I'm communicating with someone who's just using an LLM to generate their responses. Imagine if you are talking to someone in-person, and they pull out a phone, generate a response then read it back out to you?
On a deeper level, if someone's generated a bunch of text and clearly hasn't devoted the time into generating/editing it that they're expecting me to invest while reading it, I'm just not going to read it.
Everything in this post stems from the assumption that you already know what you're doing, which is probably true for things you've built before. But I hope we can agree that you can't spec out something you have no clue how to build, let alone write the tests before you've even explored the boundaries of the problem space. That's completely unreasonable. My second point is that this approach is fundamentally wrong f…
What you’ve described is an incredibly expensive and inefficient genetic algorithm with a human review as the fitness function. It’s not the flex you might think it is.
Short take: replace TDD with BDD, and might add DDD as a spice. Otherwise this is a fairly good article. Why not TDD? Since a lot of developers use LLMs to create tests today, plus a lot of the training data contains information on how to do this. Making it something that it either can figure out to do by itself or that it will cheat. Both equally bad. A somewhat controversial take is that you should simply avoid wri…
import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
describe('User Authentication', () => {
it('should allow login with valid credentials', () => {
const result = login('user@example.com', 'password123');
expect(result.isAuthenticated).toBe(true);
});