3 ms·

It's better than traditional autocomplete, but not transformative. ChatGPT is particularly bad with JavaScript — you're better off writing that yourself.

• cloudking 3y ago
  Are you using GPT 3.5 or 4? Huge difference in quality with 4.
  • cdme 3y ago
    3.5 — I've found it tends to hallucinate when dealing with APIs as well.
    • cloudking 3y ago
      Yeah it's pretty useless. Spend the $20 for a month to try GPT-4, you'll be surprised. It definitely saves me more than $20 of time each month.
• dawnerd 3y ago
  Interesting, I've found it's JS support pretty great. Wonder how much the codebase has a factor and how well things are typed/documented.
  • k__ 3y ago
    Thing is, Copilot doesn't seem to take the code of the actual installed packets into account. The moment you work with something a bit more obscure, it just guesses. Especially with TypeScript it's kinda funny, since IntelliSense which is right there, in the IDE, tells the truth, but is completely ignored by Copilot.
• k__ 3y ago
  Yes. It feels like how auto complete should actually work, but I haven't seen any exceptional performance from Copilot. Like with Phind, the longer the code examples, the more errors. But it feels a more fluid when typing boilerplate heavy code, which is nice.
  • mpweiher 3y ago
    Pro: writing lots of boilerplate is less painful. Con: writing lots of boilerplate is less painful. (So you get more boilerplate code)