4 ms·
IMO it's hardly more of a stretch to say that your C++ compiler is just an obtuse chatbot. If it doesn't complain with template error vomit, you understand its
by cwalv 2y ago
IMO it's hardly more of a stretch to say that your C++ compiler is just an obtuse chatbot. If it doesn't complain with template error vomit, you understand its response is 'done'. Otherwise, it's chatting back the errors of your ways.
- shortrounddev2 2y agoI can model the execution of a C++ program as it relates to the underlying stack, heap, CPU, etc. in my mind as I'm coding it. I cannot with whatever LLMs do. Anyways, it's just not real engineering to do so. A world in which we spend all day talking to chatbots is simply not a world I want to be a part of
- cwalv 2y ago> I can model the execution of a C++ program as it relates to the underlying stack, heap, CPU, etc. in my mind Fair enough. It's a very approximate model tho; even C++ is operating at a very high level of abstraction. To me, what's more important is what it does, not how it does it. To use an LLM effectively you absolutely have to understand what it's doing; for software, that's the code it generates and the domain/ecosystem the software operates in. Conceptually, it's not that different from what senior ICs have been doing for ages, when they delegate to less-senior ICs