3 ms·
> Personally the use for me has been in writing boilerplate. We live in a world with everything from macro systems and code generation to higher-order function
by saurik 3y ago
> Personally the use for me has been in writing boilerplate.
We live in a world with everything from macro systems and code generation to higher-order functions and types... if you find yourself writing the same "boilerplate" enough times that you find it annoying, just automate it, the same way you can automate anything else we do using software. I have found myself writing very little "boilerplate" in my decades of software development, as I'd rather at the extreme (and it almost never comes to this) throw together a custom compiler than litter my code with a bunch of hopefully-the-same-every-time difficult-to-adjust-later "boilerplate".
- rolisz 3y agoI'd say that using LLMs to write boilerplate falls under "automation"
- Liskni_si 3y agoYes, except it's "bad automation", because as opposed to the automation referred to by GP, boilerplate written by an LLM (or an intern or whomever) is extra code that costs a lot of time to be maintained.
- rsynnott 3y agoBut, perhaps uniquely amongst all the systems for avoiding boilerplate since Lisp macros were introduced in the 1950s, it will sometimes make stuff up. I don't buy that "a worse way to write boilerplate" is going to revolutionise programming.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]