12 ms·

I have never understood why people want to use LLMs for programming outside of learning. I have written Perl, C, C#, Rust, and Ruby professionally and to this d

I have never understood why people want to use LLMs for programming outside of learning. I have written Perl, C, C#, Rust, and Ruby professionally and to this day I feel like they would slow me down. I have used golang in the past and I was not am still not a fan. But I recently had to break it out for a new project. LLMs actually make golang not a totally miserable experience to write, to the point I’m honestly astonished that people have found it pleasant to work with before they were available. There is so much boilerplate and unnecessary toil. And the LLMs thankfully can do most of that work for you, because most of the time you’re hand-crafting artisanal reimplementations of things that would be a single function call in every other language. An LLM can recognize that pattern before you’ve even finished the first line of it. I’m not sure that speaks well of the language.

tgma 1y ago
> I have never understood why people want to use LLMs for programming outside of learning "I have never understood why people want to use C for programming outside of learning m. I have written PDP11, Motorola 6800, 8086 assembly professionally and to this day I feel like they would slow me down. I have used C in the past and I was not am still not a fan. But I recently had to break it out for a new project. Turbo C actually make C not a totally miserable experience to write, to the point I’m honestly astonished that people have found it pleasant to work with before they were available. There is so much boilerplate and unnecessary toil. And Turbo C with a macro library thankfully can do most of that work for you, because most of the time you’re hand-crafting artisanal reimplementations of things that would be a single function call in every other language. A macro can recognize that pattern before you’ve even finished the first line of it. I’m not sure that speaks well of the language." They are enormously powerful tools. I cannot imagine LLMs not being one of the primary tools in a programmer's toolbox, well... for as long as coding exists.
- stouset 1y ago
  Right now they are fancy autocompletes. That is enormously useful for a language where 90% of the typing is boilerplate in desperate need of autocompletion. Most of the “interesting” logic I write is nowhere close to autocompleted successfully and most of it needs to be thrown out. If you’re spending most of your days writing glue that translates one set of JSON documents or HTTP requests into another I’m sure they’re wildly useful.
  - tgma 1y ago
    I don't know which models you are using, but in my experience they have been way more than fancy autocomplete today. I have had thousand line programs written and refined with just a few prompts. On the analysis and code review side, they have been even more impressive, finding issues and potential impacts of changes and describing the intent behind the code. I implore you to revisit good models like Gemini 2.5 Pro. To wit, there was an actual Linux kernel vulnerability in SMB protocol stack discovered with LLM a few days ago. Even if we take the narrow use case of boilerplate glue code that transforms data from one place to another, that encompasses almost all programs people write, statistically. There was a running joke at Google "we are just moving protobufs." I would not call this "fancy autocomplete."
    - stevekemp 1y ago
      It comes back to the nature of the work; I've got a hobby project which is basically an emulator of CP/M, a system from the 70s, and there is a bug in it. My emulator runs BBC Basic, Zork, Turbo Pascal, etc, etc, but when it is used to run a vintage C compiler from the 80s it gives the wrong results. Can an LLM help me identify the source of this bug? No. Can I say "fix it"? No. In the past I said "Write a test-case for this CP/M BDOS function, in the same style as the existing tests" and it said "Nope" and hallucinated functions in my codebase which it tried to call. Basically if I use an LLM as an auto-completer it works slightly better than my Emacs setup already did, but anything more than that, for me, fails and worse still fails in a way that eats my time.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        > Can an LLM help me identify the source of this bug? No. Can I say "fix it"? No. In the past I said "Write a test-case for this CP/M BDOS function, in the same style as the existing tests" These are all things I've done successfully with ChatGPT o1 and o3 in a 7.5kloc Rust codebase. I find the key is to include all information which may be necessary to solve the problem in the prompt. That simple.
        1y ago
DoesntMatter22 1y ago
This is akin to saying that you prefer a horse to a car because you don't have to buy gas for a horse, it can eat for free so why use it?
- stouset 1y ago
  The first cars were probably much less useful than horses. They didn’t go very far, gas pumping infrastructure wasn’t widely available, and you needed specialized knowledge to operate them. Sure, they got better. But at the outset they were a pretty poor value proposition.
spmurrayzzz 1y ago
I've always found it fascinating how frequently I've seen the complaint about Go re: boilerplate and unnecessary toil, but in previous statements Rust was uttered with an uncritical breath. I agree with the complaint about Go, but I have the same problem with Rust. LLMs have made Rust much more joyful for me to write, and I am sure much of this is obviously subjective. I do like automating all the endless `Result<T, E>` plumbing, `?` operator chains, custom error enums, and `From` conversions. Manual trait impls for simple wrappers like `Deref`, `AsRef`, `Display`, etc. 90% of this is structural too, so it feels like busy work. You know exactly what to write, but the compiler can't/won’t do it for you. The LLM fills that gap pretty well a significant percentage of the time. But to your original point, the LLM is very good at autocompleting this type of code zero-shot. I just don't think it speaks ill of Rust as a consequence.

tgma 1y ago

> I have never understood why people want to use LLMs for programming outside of learning "I have never understood why people want to use C for programming outside of learning m. I have written PDP11, Motorola 6800, 8086 assembly professionally and to this day I feel like they would slow me down. I have used C in the past and I was not am still not a fan. But I recently had to break it out for a new project. Turbo C actually make C not a totally miserable experience to write, to the point I’m honestly astonished that people have found it pleasant to work with before they were available. There is so much boilerplate and unnecessary toil. And Turbo C with a macro library thankfully can do most of that work for you, because most of the time you’re hand-crafting artisanal reimplementations of things that would be a single function call in every other language. A macro can recognize that pattern before you’ve even finished the first line of it. I’m not sure that speaks well of the language." They are enormously powerful tools. I cannot imagine LLMs not being one of the primary tools in a programmer's toolbox, well... for as long as coding exists.

stouset 1y ago
Right now they are fancy autocompletes. That is enormously useful for a language where 90% of the typing is boilerplate in desperate need of autocompletion. Most of the “interesting” logic I write is nowhere close to autocompleted successfully and most of it needs to be thrown out. If you’re spending most of your days writing glue that translates one set of JSON documents or HTTP requests into another I’m sure they’re wildly useful.
- tgma 1y ago
  I don't know which models you are using, but in my experience they have been way more than fancy autocomplete today. I have had thousand line programs written and refined with just a few prompts. On the analysis and code review side, they have been even more impressive, finding issues and potential impacts of changes and describing the intent behind the code. I implore you to revisit good models like Gemini 2.5 Pro. To wit, there was an actual Linux kernel vulnerability in SMB protocol stack discovered with LLM a few days ago. Even if we take the narrow use case of boilerplate glue code that transforms data from one place to another, that encompasses almost all programs people write, statistically. There was a running joke at Google "we are just moving protobufs." I would not call this "fancy autocomplete."
  - stevekemp 1y ago
    It comes back to the nature of the work; I've got a hobby project which is basically an emulator of CP/M, a system from the 70s, and there is a bug in it. My emulator runs BBC Basic, Zork, Turbo Pascal, etc, etc, but when it is used to run a vintage C compiler from the 80s it gives the wrong results. Can an LLM help me identify the source of this bug? No. Can I say "fix it"? No. In the past I said "Write a test-case for this CP/M BDOS function, in the same style as the existing tests" and it said "Nope" and hallucinated functions in my codebase which it tried to call. Basically if I use an LLM as an auto-completer it works slightly better than my Emacs setup already did, but anything more than that, for me, fails and worse still fails in a way that eats my time.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > Can an LLM help me identify the source of this bug? No. Can I say "fix it"? No. In the past I said "Write a test-case for this CP/M BDOS function, in the same style as the existing tests" These are all things I've done successfully with ChatGPT o1 and o3 in a 7.5kloc Rust codebase. I find the key is to include all information which may be necessary to solve the problem in the prompt. That simple.
      - 1y ago

DoesntMatter22 1y ago

This is akin to saying that you prefer a horse to a car because you don't have to buy gas for a horse, it can eat for free so why use it?

stouset 1y ago
The first cars were probably much less useful than horses. They didn’t go very far, gas pumping infrastructure wasn’t widely available, and you needed specialized knowledge to operate them. Sure, they got better. But at the outset they were a pretty poor value proposition.

spmurrayzzz 1y ago

I've always found it fascinating how frequently I've seen the complaint about Go re: boilerplate and unnecessary toil, but in previous statements Rust was uttered with an uncritical breath. I agree with the complaint about Go, but I have the same problem with Rust. LLMs have made Rust much more joyful for me to write, and I am sure much of this is obviously subjective. I do like automating all the endless `Result<T, E>` plumbing, `?` operator chains, custom error enums, and `From` conversions. Manual trait impls for simple wrappers like `Deref`, `AsRef`, `Display`, etc. 90% of this is structural too, so it feels like busy work. You know exactly what to write, but the compiler can't/won’t do it for you. The LLM fills that gap pretty well a significant percentage of the time. But to your original point, the LLM is very good at autocompleting this type of code zero-shot. I just don't think it speaks ill of Rust as a consequence.