3 ms·
My experience with Copilot's productivity estimates differs significantly from these figures. As someone who rarely consults Stack Overflow, I've found their es
by register 2y ago
My experience with Copilot's productivity estimates differs significantly from these figures. As someone who rarely consults Stack Overflow, I've found their estimates to be exaggerated. During a recent 2-hour coding session (yesterday), I found Copilot's contributions to be minimal. The only substantial benefit was a single autocomplete suggestion for a unit test, which saved me approximately 5 minutes. While this may seem insignificant, it represents a mere 4% time savings in a focused coding session.Interestingly, I rejected at least 70% of Copilot's suggestions during this session. Most were either obvious or didn't align with my coding style. Your estimates appear to be based on scenarios where developers frequently consult external resources like Stack Overflow. Given that I don't typically seek help from such platforms, these estimates do not reflect my experience at all.
- vbezhenar 2y agoFor me Copilot saves a sizeable chunk of coding time. That said, it might be because of my style. I often prefer writing repetitive dumb code, so Copilot fits perfectly, auto-completing obvious code which still must be written. Before Copilot I often used things like vim macroses, regex search&replace, multiple cursors and so on, but of course they take more time that hitting "<Tab>". At the same time Copilot is very smart at getting patterns and in my experience absolutely reliable, it never makes simple things wrong. Also I can note, that some languages are just naturally fit for Copilot, one of them is Go with its constant `if err != nil` incantations.