5 ms·

I've changed my mind on that as well. I think that, generally, chat UIs are a lazy and not very user friendly. However, when coding I keep switching between two

I've changed my mind on that as well. I think that, generally, chat UIs are a lazy and not very user friendly. However, when coding I keep switching between two modes: 1. I need a smart autocomplete that can work backwards and mimic my coding patterns 2. I need a pair programming buddy (of sorts, this metaphor doesn't completely work, but I don't have a better one) Pair development, even a butchered version of the so called "strong style" (give the driver the highest level of abstraction they can use/understand) works quite well for me. But, the main reason this works is that it forces me to structure my thinking a little bit, allows me to iterate on the definition of the problem. Toss away the sketch with bigger parts of the problem, start again. It also helps me to avoid yak shaving, getting lost in the detail or distracted because the feedback loop between me seeing something working on the screen vs. the idea is so short (even if the code is crap). I'd also add 5.: use prompts to generate (boring) prompts. For instance, I needed a simple #tag formatter for one of my markdown sites. I am aware that there's a not-so-small list of edge cases I'd need to cover. In this case I'd write a prompt with a list of basic requirements and ask the LLM to: a) extend it with good practice, common edge cases b) format it as a spec with concrete input / output examples. This works a bit similar to the point you made about generating unit tests (I do that too, in tandem with this approach). In a sense 1) is autocomplete 2) is a scaffolding tool.

echelon 2y ago
I work on GenAI in the media domain, and I think this will hold true with other fields as well: - Text prompts and chat interfaces are great for coarse grained exploration. You can get a rough start that you can refine. "Knight standing in a desert, rusted suit of armor" gets you started, but you'll want to take it much further. - Precision inputs (mouse or structure guided) are best for fine tuning the result and honing in on the solution itself. You can individually plant the cacti and pose the character. You can't get there with text.
ryandrake 2y ago
> I've changed my mind on that as well. I think that, generally, chat UIs are a lazy and not very user friendly. However, when coding I keep switching between two modes: > 1. I need a smart autocomplete that can work backwards and mimic my coding patterns > 2. I need a pair programming buddy (of sorts, this metaphor doesn't completely work, but I don't have a better one) Thanks! This is the first time I've seen it put this clearly. When I first tried out CoPilot, I was unsure of how I was "supposed" to interact with it. Is it (as you put it) a smarter autocomplete, or a programming buddy? Is it both? What was the right input method to use? After a while, I realized that for my personal style I would pretty much entirely use method 1, and never method 2. But, others might really need that "programming buddy" and use that interface instead.
yarekt 2y ago
Oh yea, point 1 for sure. I call copilot regex on steroids. Example: - copy paste a table from a pdf datasheet into a comment (it'll be badly formatted with newlines and whatnot, doesn't matter) - show it how to do the first line - autocomplete the rest of the table - Check every row to make sure it didn't invent fields/types For this type of workflow the tools are a real time saver. I've yet to see any results for the other workflows. They usually just frustrate me by either starting to suggest nonsense code without full understanding, or its far too easy to bias the results and make them stuck in a pattern of thinking.

echelon 2y ago

I work on GenAI in the media domain, and I think this will hold true with other fields as well: - Text prompts and chat interfaces are great for coarse grained exploration. You can get a rough start that you can refine. "Knight standing in a desert, rusted suit of armor" gets you started, but you'll want to take it much further. - Precision inputs (mouse or structure guided) are best for fine tuning the result and honing in on the solution itself. You can individually plant the cacti and pose the character. You can't get there with text.

ryandrake 2y ago

> I've changed my mind on that as well. I think that, generally, chat UIs are a lazy and not very user friendly. However, when coding I keep switching between two modes: > 1. I need a smart autocomplete that can work backwards and mimic my coding patterns > 2. I need a pair programming buddy (of sorts, this metaphor doesn't completely work, but I don't have a better one) Thanks! This is the first time I've seen it put this clearly. When I first tried out CoPilot, I was unsure of how I was "supposed" to interact with it. Is it (as you put it) a smarter autocomplete, or a programming buddy? Is it both? What was the right input method to use? After a while, I realized that for my personal style I would pretty much entirely use method 1, and never method 2. But, others might really need that "programming buddy" and use that interface instead.

yarekt 2y ago

Oh yea, point 1 for sure. I call copilot regex on steroids. Example: - copy paste a table from a pdf datasheet into a comment (it'll be badly formatted with newlines and whatnot, doesn't matter) - show it how to do the first line - autocomplete the rest of the table - Check every row to make sure it didn't invent fields/types For this type of workflow the tools are a real time saver. I've yet to see any results for the other workflows. They usually just frustrate me by either starting to suggest nonsense code without full understanding, or its far too easy to bias the results and make them stuck in a pattern of thinking.