• dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    TBH, it’s not really that great at that. Is average at best and grossly misleading and flat out wrong at worst. It may bring slight speedups for average development on boring legacy enterprise code, but anything really novel and interesting? Detrimental.

    • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      47 minutes ago

      Most code on the planet is boring legacy code, though. Novel and interesting is typically a small fraction of a codebase, and it will often be more in the design than the code itself. Anything that can help us make boring code more digestible is welcome. Plenty of other pitfalls along the way though.

      • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        26 minutes ago

        Fair enough, that’s true. I guess my gripe is with the narrow use case and the debugging and/or prompt/context tuning to get what you want. I still feel that if you don’t get what you want on the first try, it’s faster to write it yourself than spending time “debugging” the input and maybe get a 60% chance on correct output, which in most cases, still needs debugging. And god forbid, a framework is rewritten.

        I just wished it was a bit better before we hit the plateau of diminishing returns.