Beyond agentic coding
haskellforall.com
Beyond agentic coding
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#2Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading. But rest of article is good, and I actually think that Agentic/AI coding will probably evolve in this way.
The current tools are the infancy of AI assisted coding. It’s like the MS-DOS era. Over time maybe the backpropagating from “your comfort language” to “target language” could become commonplace.
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#3Agentic coding doesn't make any sense for a job interview. To do it well requires a detailed specification prompt which can't reliably be written in an interview. It ideally also requires iterating upon the prompt to refine it before execution. You get out of it what you put into it.
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#4Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading. But rest of article is good, and I actually think that Agentic/AI coding will probably evolve in this way. The current tools are the infancy of AI assisted coding. It’s like the MS-DOS era. Over time maybe the backpropagating from “your comfort language” to “target language” could become commonplace.
Programming languages are most interesting area in CS for the next 10 years. AI need criteria for correctness that can't be faked so the boundary between proof verification and programs will become fuzzier and fuzzier. The runtimes also need support for massively parallel development in a way that is totally unnecessary for humans.
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#5[deleted]
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#6Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading. But rest of article is good, and I actually think that Agentic/AI coding will probably evolve in this way. The current tools are the infancy of AI assisted coding. It’s like the MS-DOS era. Over time maybe the backpropagating from “your comfort language” to “target language” could become commonplace.
> Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading.
To be fair, that's not part of the article's title, but rather the title of the website that the article was posted to.
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#7Agentic coding doesn't make any sense for a job interview. To do it well requires a detailed specification prompt which can't reliably be written in an interview. It ideally also requires iterating upon the prompt to refine it before execution. You get out of it what you put into it.
>which can't reliably be written in an interview
Why not? It sounds like a skill issue to me.
>It ideally also requires iterating upon the prompt to refine it before execution.
I don't understand. It's not like you would need to one shot it.
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#8Agentic coding doesn't make any sense for a job interview. To do it well requires a detailed specification prompt which can't reliably be written in an interview. It ideally also requires iterating upon the prompt to refine it before execution. You get out of it what you put into it.
How about bug fixing? Give someone a repo with a tricky bug, ask them to figure it out with the help of their coding agent of choice.
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#9Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading. But rest of article is good, and I actually think that Agentic/AI coding will probably evolve in this way. The current tools are the infancy of AI assisted coding. It’s like the MS-DOS era. Over time maybe the backpropagating from “your comfort language” to “target language” could become commonplace.
> Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading. To be fair, that's not part of the article's title, but rather the title of the website that the article was posted to.
I know, but that's not typically how you see titles posted here. I'm just disappointed as I enjoy writing Haskell. :)
Re: Beyond agentic coding
#10Agentic coding doesn't make any sense for a job interview. To do it well requires a detailed specification prompt which can't reliably be written in an interview. It ideally also requires iterating upon the prompt to refine it before execution. You get out of it what you put into it.
In the UK the driving test requires a portion of driving using a satnav, the idea being that drivers are going to use satnavs so it's important to test that they know how how to use them safely.
The same goes for using Claude in a programming interview. If the environment of interview is not representative of how people actually work then the interview needs to be changed.