3 ms·

Okay so this is a personal opinion right? Like where is the objectivity in your review? What are the hardline performance characteristics being violated? Or fu

Okay so this is a personal opinion right? Like where is the objectivity in your review? What are the hardline performance characteristics being violated? Or functional incorrectness. Is this just "it's against my sensibilities" because at the end of the day frankly no one agrees on how to develop anything. The thing I see a lot of developers struggle with is just because it doesn't fit your mental model doesn't make it objectively bad. So unless it's objectively wrong or worse in a measurable characteristic I don't know that it matters. For the record I'm not asserting it is right, I'm just saying I've seen a lot of critiques of LLM code boil down to "it's not how I'd write it" and I wager that holds for every developer you'll ever interact with.

KoolKat23 2y ago
I agree, it seems a lot of the complaints boil down to academic reasons. Fine it's not the best and perhaps may run into some longer term issues but most importantly it works at this point in time. A snobby/academic equivalent would be someone using an obscure language such as COBOL. The world continues to turn.
dzaima 2y ago
OP didn't put much effort into writing the code so I'm certainly not putting in much effort into a proper review of it, for no benefit to me no less. I just wanted to see what quality AI gets you, and made a comment about it. I'm pretty sure the code not having the "if (…) lexer->line++" in places is just a plain simple repeated bug that'll result in wrong line numbers for certain inputs. And human-wise I'd say the simple way to not have made that bug would've been to make/change abstractions upon the second or so time writing "if (…) lexer->line++" such that it takes effort to do it incorrectly, whereas the linked code allows getting it wrong by default with no indication that there's a thing to be gotten wrong. Point being that bad abstractions are not just a maintenance nightmare, but also makes doing code review (which is extra important with LLM code) harder.

KoolKat23 2y ago

I agree, it seems a lot of the complaints boil down to academic reasons. Fine it's not the best and perhaps may run into some longer term issues but most importantly it works at this point in time. A snobby/academic equivalent would be someone using an obscure language such as COBOL. The world continues to turn.

dzaima 2y ago

OP didn't put much effort into writing the code so I'm certainly not putting in much effort into a proper review of it, for no benefit to me no less. I just wanted to see what quality AI gets you, and made a comment about it. I'm pretty sure the code not having the "if (…) lexer->line++" in places is just a plain simple repeated bug that'll result in wrong line numbers for certain inputs. And human-wise I'd say the simple way to not have made that bug would've been to make/change abstractions upon the second or so time writing "if (…) lexer->line++" such that it takes effort to do it incorrectly, whereas the linked code allows getting it wrong by default with no indication that there's a thing to be gotten wrong. Point being that bad abstractions are not just a maintenance nightmare, but also makes doing code review (which is extra important with LLM code) harder.