17 ms·

You haven't made any kind of argument, but I can fathom from your tone about 'ChatGPT' that there is something inherently wrong with generated code. I suggest

by jasmer 4y ago

You haven't made any kind of argument, but I can fathom from your tone about 'ChatGPT' that there is something inherently wrong with generated code. I suggest you're implied reasoning is wrong: if it's a tool and it helps, use it. I don't use it because the code I write is hyper specific, and the suggestions interfere with the 'regular' code completions, and they're just not good enough. But it is very impressive, and for boiler-plate oriented code, I would use it. All of that said, the risk in the code is that it can introduce a bit of laziness in that code still needs to be very closely inspected and I suggest many won't bother.

sjamaan 4y ago
> All of that said, the risk in the code is that it can introduce a bit of laziness in that code still needs to be very closely inspected and I suggest many won't bother. I think this is the crux of the problem for such "generated code". It's like when you do a code review of a pull request - it's very easy to miss subtle issues. When you write the code yourself you're forced to really think things through. You will still make mistakes, granted. But accepting generated code that you "reviewed" is like you're back in math class convincing yourself that you understood the teacher's line of reasoning and you know the material. It's when you really get down to business with your nose on the facts when you will see subtle (and not so subtle) bits where either copilot got it wrong or where you simply didn't understand some implications.