3 ms·
I kind of agree with you and I followed almost the same path. Excerpt one thing I noticed. That the times it is subtly wrong I waste a ton of time finding the
by moltar 3y ago
I kind of agree with you and I followed almost the same path.
Excerpt one thing I noticed. That the times it is subtly wrong I waste a ton of time finding the bug. It’s like looking for bugs in someone else’s code. I lack the context and muscle memory of the code written by the assistant.
I’m still not sure if it’s net positive. I wish there was an objective way to measure the effect on a personal, project and org level.
- cageface 3y agoThis was my experience as well. The time it saved me didn't add up to the time I spent in the debugger fixing subtle bugs in code that looked fine but didn't quite work. I think it would be very easy to ship hard to find bugs in production code with copilot.
- macNchz 3y agoI think there’s a “eyes glaze over” effect with generating lots of boilerplate, where things look generally correct, but have issues you need to be paying attention to notice and correct. One example recently: I watched a developer scaffolding a database schema with an ORM. Plenty of boilerplate defining the fields and stuff, nice to have Copilot running, however the suggestions were baking in bad design that would work now, but almost certainly cause pain later: nullable foreign keys, text fields with inappropriate max lengths, redundant FK relationships where a relationship could be ambiguous depending on whether you joined directly on the FK or through another related table, etc. Obviously all of that is on the developer to notice and be responsible for, but it’s really easy to just tab through the completions, see that it works (right now) and move on.