4 ms·

That definitely makes a lot of sense. I think if you are coding in a flow state on something, and LLMs interrupt that, then you should avoid them for those case

That definitely makes a lot of sense. I think if you are coding in a flow state on something, and LLMs interrupt that, then you should avoid them for those cases. The areas that I've found LLMs work well for are usually small simple tasks I have to do where I would end up Googling something or looking at docs anyway. LLMs have just replaced many of these types of tasks for me. But I continue to learn new areas where they work well, or exceptions where they fail. And new models make it a moving target too. Good luck with it!

skydhash 2y ago
> I think if you are coding in a flow state on something, and LLMs interrupt that, then you should avoid them for those cases. Maybe that's why I don't like them. I'm always in a flow state, or reading docs and/or a lot of code to understand something. By the time I'm typing, I already know what exactly to write, and thanks to my vim-fu (and emacs-fu), getting it done is a breeze. Then comes the edit-compile-run, or edit-test cycle, and by then it's mostly tweaks. I get why someone would generate boilerplate, but most of the time, I don't want the complete version from the get go. Because later changes are more costly, especially if I'm not fully sure of the design. So I want something minimal that's working, then go work on things that are dependent, then get back when I'm sure of what the interface should be. I like working iteratively which then means small edits (unless refactoring). Not battling with a big dump of code for a whole day to get it working.
- sothatsit 2y ago
  Yeah, I think it matters a lot what type of work you do. I have to jump between projects a lot that are all in different languages with a lot of codebases I'm not deeply familiar with. So for me, LLMs are really useful to get up-to-speed on the knowledge I need to work on new projects. If I've got a clear idea of what I want to write, there's no way I'm touching an LLM. I'm just going to smash out the code for exactly what I need. However, often I don't get that luxury as I'll need to learn different file system APIs, different sets of commands, new jargon, different standard libraries for the new languages, new technologies, etc...

skydhash 2y ago

> I think if you are coding in a flow state on something, and LLMs interrupt that, then you should avoid them for those cases. Maybe that's why I don't like them. I'm always in a flow state, or reading docs and/or a lot of code to understand something. By the time I'm typing, I already know what exactly to write, and thanks to my vim-fu (and emacs-fu), getting it done is a breeze. Then comes the edit-compile-run, or edit-test cycle, and by then it's mostly tweaks. I get why someone would generate boilerplate, but most of the time, I don't want the complete version from the get go. Because later changes are more costly, especially if I'm not fully sure of the design. So I want something minimal that's working, then go work on things that are dependent, then get back when I'm sure of what the interface should be. I like working iteratively which then means small edits (unless refactoring). Not battling with a big dump of code for a whole day to get it working.

sothatsit 2y ago
Yeah, I think it matters a lot what type of work you do. I have to jump between projects a lot that are all in different languages with a lot of codebases I'm not deeply familiar with. So for me, LLMs are really useful to get up-to-speed on the knowledge I need to work on new projects. If I've got a clear idea of what I want to write, there's no way I'm touching an LLM. I'm just going to smash out the code for exactly what I need. However, often I don't get that luxury as I'll need to learn different file system APIs, different sets of commands, new jargon, different standard libraries for the new languages, new technologies, etc...