42 ms·
This is an abstract response to a concrete demonstration of usefulness. Of course, if I'm writing crypto code or something where I don't understand the domain w
by ctoth 5y ago
This is an abstract response to a concrete demonstration of usefulness. Of course, if I'm writing crypto code or something where I don't understand the domain well, relying on Copilot would be foolish. But for a well-defined problem like the one I faced, juggling tree representations and a little recursion, being able to specify what I wanted and have the machine generate the code was actively useful and did actively save time. Also, don't you read your code once you write it in the first place? IF you've written it, you know what you meant, and are more likely to read something you didn't even write there, whereas if you're checking over the shoulder of your computerized coworker who has no ego to get hurt, you can be as critical as you need to.
- Jensson 5y agoIt is fine if you like it and it helps you. I am just telling you my opinion. To me that doesn't look helpful.
- fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago> This is an abstract response to a concrete demonstration of usefulness. Brilliantly articulated - thank you. I wonder if this is a generic pattern (like fallacies)?
- dr_zoidberg 5y agoIn my case, the act of writing the code is still a moment in which I'm thinking and analyizing my code, and I might notice if there's some error in my train of thought. Obviously that is how _I_ type code, and not something that can generalize to how others work. So it's my preference to still think about my code before, and while, I write it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]