4 ms·

> 'member Rational Rose? oh boy I do. Had a whole course in engineering school on it. Never touched it since. LLMs will just be another programming tool to he

> 'member Rational Rose? oh boy I do. Had a whole course in engineering school on it. Never touched it since. LLMs will just be another programming tool to help us be more productive, at most.

rektide 4y ago
A meager defense of the Rational Rose universe, which I never touched, but kind of liked in principle some of the ideas/aspirational-vibes I was getting from... Having higher-level views & tools that can portray & show the abstractions of computing sound so interesting. Having higher-order control over code sounds so compelling & interesting. In practice it seemed impossible to have a two-way relationship between ideal & real code, but that never seemed like a "real" limitation, like a set-fact, just happenstance that the tools all kind of blew chunks. Different subject, but in some ways, I think what would flip the bit for me in believing in machine-learned code-working is systems that can do really great refactoring things on instruction. Taking some human instruction & spitting out some html or js doesn't really impress me, to be honest. But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. Rational Rose & it's ilk were never particularly great at helping folks refactor systems, but ideologically they suggested that good code had graphical representation & that there was a bi-directional relationship; bringing out that promise doesn't take machine learning, but if machine learning got good at helping juggle code, could open the door to those ideas again, that would be powerful.
- zamfi 4y ago
  Prepare to be blown away very soon.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Doubt it. Thanks for writing. Maybe actually say something, next time? There's literally nothing to agree or disagree with in your content-free position. Ok, latter, bye!
    - zamfi 4y ago
      > But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. I encourage you to try this in ChatGPT. Give it some code and ask it to refactor out a builder pattern. It won't be perfect, but if it's like anything I've tried, what it gives you will save you some time, and may offer you an insight or two. --- On an entirely unrelated note, I also encourage you to keep your frustration in check -- an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. Equally effective without being condescending or aggressive would have been "Could you say more?" I chose to interpret your message in this way; others may not be so kind.
      - rektide 4y ago
        > an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. disagree, thanks again. if you just show up to blindly dunk on my actual-contentful talking without saying a single thing, it's you whose being aggressive. i'm fine with aggression too, but i expect it to actually present a form & not just live in shadows. like you did. ultimately i think i contributed to reason, shared perspective, and if i ruffle feathers in negative people who won't build their own stances, i have zero bones about it. could i do more to coax them into saying something useful? perhaps. should i? meh. apologies, but vacuousness is it's own clear counter-argument & i don't lament pointing that out. there's some legitemacy to telling me to fuck around and find out. frankly i'm not really sure how i'd get access, and i dont think these systems can actually understand & rewrite my code at all, right now, can't read a github repo. so it seems like an impossible ask to even try to do the very basic long-term co-partnership i'd asked after, at all. and again i don't really have access, as far as i can tell, cause they're all fairly guarded inaccessible experiments. i really don't think we'd find much of hope or promise, if we were somehow able to get these systems to try to start working on our existing code-bases. does anyone have any starting place at all to start re-believing against my objections?
        zamfi 4y ago

> 'member Rational Rose? oh boy I do. Had a whole course in engineering school on it. Never touched it since. LLMs will just be another programming tool to help us be more productive, at most.

rektide 4y ago

A meager defense of the Rational Rose universe, which I never touched, but kind of liked in principle some of the ideas/aspirational-vibes I was getting from... Having higher-level views & tools that can portray & show the abstractions of computing sound so interesting. Having higher-order control over code sounds so compelling & interesting. In practice it seemed impossible to have a two-way relationship between ideal & real code, but that never seemed like a "real" limitation, like a set-fact, just happenstance that the tools all kind of blew chunks. Different subject, but in some ways, I think what would flip the bit for me in believing in machine-learned code-working is systems that can do really great refactoring things on instruction. Taking some human instruction & spitting out some html or js doesn't really impress me, to be honest. But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. Rational Rose & it's ilk were never particularly great at helping folks refactor systems, but ideologically they suggested that good code had graphical representation & that there was a bi-directional relationship; bringing out that promise doesn't take machine learning, but if machine learning got good at helping juggle code, could open the door to those ideas again, that would be powerful.

zamfi 4y ago
Prepare to be blown away very soon.
- rektide 4y ago
  Doubt it. Thanks for writing. Maybe actually say something, next time? There's literally nothing to agree or disagree with in your content-free position. Ok, latter, bye!
  - zamfi 4y ago
    > But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. I encourage you to try this in ChatGPT. Give it some code and ask it to refactor out a builder pattern. It won't be perfect, but if it's like anything I've tried, what it gives you will save you some time, and may offer you an insight or two. --- On an entirely unrelated note, I also encourage you to keep your frustration in check -- an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. Equally effective without being condescending or aggressive would have been "Could you say more?" I chose to interpret your message in this way; others may not be so kind.
    - rektide 4y ago
      > an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. disagree, thanks again. if you just show up to blindly dunk on my actual-contentful talking without saying a single thing, it's you whose being aggressive. i'm fine with aggression too, but i expect it to actually present a form & not just live in shadows. like you did. ultimately i think i contributed to reason, shared perspective, and if i ruffle feathers in negative people who won't build their own stances, i have zero bones about it. could i do more to coax them into saying something useful? perhaps. should i? meh. apologies, but vacuousness is it's own clear counter-argument & i don't lament pointing that out. there's some legitemacy to telling me to fuck around and find out. frankly i'm not really sure how i'd get access, and i dont think these systems can actually understand & rewrite my code at all, right now, can't read a github repo. so it seems like an impossible ask to even try to do the very basic long-term co-partnership i'd asked after, at all. and again i don't really have access, as far as i can tell, cause they're all fairly guarded inaccessible experiments. i really don't think we'd find much of hope or promise, if we were somehow able to get these systems to try to start working on our existing code-bases. does anyone have any starting place at all to start re-believing against my objections?
      - zamfi 4y ago