4 ms·
My hunch here is that, because of the sometimes haphazard hallucinations of ChatGPT, you would need to always review the code that ChatGPT has crated. Also as i
by he0001 4y ago
My hunch here is that, because of the sometimes haphazard hallucinations of ChatGPT, you would need to always review the code that ChatGPT has crated. Also as in a group of people you sometimes agree on specific styles, but I think that ChatGPT won’t adhere to such things, making its code unfamiliar and really hard to follow. We as humans have a hard time agreeing on how code should be written, does ChatGPT have a better notion? And how maintainable is that? How does it make a change?
- coldtea 4y ago>Also as in a group of people you sometimes agree on specific styles, but I think that ChatGPT won’t adhere to such things, making its code unfamiliar and really hard to follow. ChatGPT wont, but a facade variant specifically trained and marketed for code probably would. It could even had a configuration for coding style, formatting and linting rules, and programming paradigm (more functional, more declarative, invent a DSL, and so on)
- he0001 4y agoI don’t know, styles are not definable as it’s a style, perhaps it will end up with its own style. Linting is a rule set, so that would be easy. But related to what I’ve seen on how ChatGPT express itself, I’d say it keeps on changing its style. Edit: it seems like it may have some style but still fails to write it accurately[0]. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35193188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35193188
- coldtea 4y ago>styles are not definable as it’s a style Aren't they? I'd say they can be reduced to a number of architectural tendencies (e.g. composition over inheritance, DSL or language-native code), go-to design and code organization patterns, and pure stylistic choices (like variable naming, short or larger functions, etc.)