5 ms·

That is how LLM:s should be used today. An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. Just the other da

That is how LLM:s should be used today. An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. Just the other day I was working on a prototype and let claude write code for a auth flow. Everything was good until the last step where it was just sending the user id as a string with the valid token. So if you got a valid token you could just pass in any user id and become that user. Still saved me a lot of time vs doing it from scratch.

otabdeveloper4 1y ago
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert. As an offline database of Google-tier knowledge, LLM's are useful. Though current LLM tech is half-baked, we need: a) Cheap commodity hardware for running your own models locally. (And by "locally" I mean separate dedicated devices, not something that fights over your desktop's or laptop's resources.) b) Standard bulletproof ways to fine-tune models on your own data. (Inference is already there mostly with things like llama.cpp, finetuning isn't.)
- boruto 1y ago
  I realize I procrastinate less when using LLM to write code which I know I could write.
  - kentonv 1y ago
    I've noticed this too. I remember hearing somewhere that humans have a limited capacity in terms of number of decisions made in a day, and it seems to fit here: If I'm writing the code myself, I have to make several decisions on every line of code, and that's mentally tiring, so I tend to stop and procrastinate frequently. If an LLM is handling a lot of the details, then I'm just making higher-level decisions, allowing me to make more progress. Of course this is totally speculation and theories like this tend to be wrong, but it is at least consistent with how I feel.
    - autoexec 1y ago
      I have a feeling that it's something that might help today but also something you might pay for later. When you have to maintain or bug fix that same code down the line the fact that you were the one making all those higher-level decisions and thinking through the details gives you an advantage. Just having everything structured and named in ways that make the most sense to you seems like it'd be helpful the next time you have to deal with the code. While it's often a luxury, I'd much rather work on code I wrote than code somebody else wrote.
  - nipah 1y ago
    Amazing, because I realized I procrastinate MORE when using LLM to write code which I know I could write. And not only that, I feel I'm losing the ability to do the coding myself and solve the problems myself when delegating this to the AI. Which is why no one should base their own decisions for life, like using or not using an LLM, on some random story from the internet.
- brailsafe 1y ago
  > No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert How could that possibly be true!? Seems like it'd be the same as suggesting being constrained to analog writing utensils wouldn't bottleneck the process of publishing a book or research paper. At the very least such a statement implies that people with ADHD can't be experts.
  - otabdeveloper4 1y ago
    > How could that possibly be true!? (I'll assume you're not joking, because your post is ridiculous enough to look like sarcasm.) The answer is because programmers read code 10 times more (and think about code 100 times more) than they write it.
    - thisissomething 1y ago
      Yeah, but how fast can you write compared to how fast you think? How many times have you read a story card and by the time you finished reading it you thought "It's an easy task, should take me 1 hour of work to write the code and tests"? In my experience, in most of those cases the AI can do the same amount of code writing in under 10 minutes, leaving me the other 50 minutes to review the code, make/ask for any necessary adjustments, and move on to another task.
      - dns_snek 1y ago
        I don't know anyone who can think faster than they can type (on average), they would have to have an IQ over 150 or something. For mere mortals like myself, reasoning through edge cases and failure conditions and error handling and state invariants takes time. Time that I spend looking at a blinking cursor while the gears spin, or reading code. I've never finished a day where I thought to myself "gosh darn, if only I could type faster this would be done already".
        skydhash 1y ago
        You could be fast if you were coding only the happy path, like a lot of juniors do. Instead of thinking about trivial things like malformed input, library semantics, framework gotchas and what not.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  Maybe you type faster than me then :) I for sure type slower than Claude code. :)
0points 1y ago
I really don't agree with the idea that expert time would just be spent typing, and I'd be really surprised if that's the common sentiment around here. An expert reasons, plans ahead, thinks and reasons a little bit more before even thinking about writing code. If you are measuring productivity by lines of code per hour then you don't understand what being a dev is.
- brailsafe 1y ago
  > I really don't agree with the idea that expert time would just be spent typing, and I'd be really surprised if that's the common sentiment around here. They didn't suggest that at all, they merely suggested that the component of the expert's work that would otherwise be spent typing can be saved, while the rest of their utility comes from intense scrutiny, problem solving, decision making about what to build and why, and everything else that comes from experience and domain understanding.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    It's not just time spent typing. Figuring out what needs to be typed can be both draining and time consuming. It's often (but not always) much easier to review someone else's solution to the problem than it is to solve it from scratch on your own. Oddly enough security critical flows are likely to be one of the few exceptions because catching subtle reasoning errors that won't trip any unit tests when reviewing code that you didn't write is extremely difficult.
    - oblio 1y ago
      The problem is, building something IS the destination. At least the first 5-10 times. Building and fixing along the way is what builds lasting knowledge for most people.
    - nipah 1y ago
      > It's not just time spent typing. Figuring out what needs to be typed can be both draining and time consuming. It's often (but not always) much easier to review someone else's solution to the problem than it is to solve it from scratch on your own. This is EXTREMELY false. When you write the code you [remember] it, it's fresh in your head, you [know] what it is doing and exactly what it's supposed to do. This is why debugging a codebase you didn't wrote is harder than one you wrote, if a bug happens you know exactly the spots it could be happening at and you can easily go and check them.
Vinnl 1y ago
At least for me, I'm fairly sure that I'm better at not adding security flaws to my code (which I'm already not perfect at!) than I am at spotting them in code that I didn't write, unfortunately.
- bryant 1y ago
  They're different mindsets. Some folks are better editors, inspectors, auditors, etc, whereas some are better builders, creators, and drafters. So what you're saying makes sense. And I'm definitely on the other side of that fence.
  - blueflow 1y ago
    When you form a mental model and then write code from that, thats a very lossy transformation. You can write comments and documentation to make it less lossy, but there will be information that is lost to an reviewer, who has to spend great effort to recreate it. If it is unknown how code is supposed to behave, then it becomes physically impossible to verify it for correctness. This is less a matter of "mindset", but more a general problem of information.
    - b112 1y ago
      Whether reviewer or creator, if the start conditions / problem is known, both start with the same info. "code base must do X with Y conditions" The reviewer is at no disadvantage, other than the ability to walk the problem without coding.
      - blueflow 1y ago
        This is the ideal case where the produced code is well readable and commented so its intent is obvious. The worst case is an intern or LLM having generated some code where the intent is not obvious and them not being able to explain the intent behind it. "How is that even related to the ticket"-style code.
  - namblooc 1y ago
XCSme 1y ago
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. In my experience, it takes longer to debug/instruct the LLM than to write it from scratch.
- Culonavirus 1y ago
  Depends on what you're doing. For example when you're writing something like React components and using something like Tailwind for styling, I find the speedup is close to 10X.
  - azemetre 1y ago
    Isn’t this because the LLMs had like a million+ react tutorials/articles/books/repos to train on? I mean I try to use them for svelte or vue and it still recommends react snippets sometimes.
    - Culonavirus 1y ago
      Generally speaking, "LLMs" that I use are always the latest thinking versions of the flagship models (Grok 3/Gemini 2.5/...). GPT4o (and equivalent) are a mess. But you're correct, when you use more exotic and/or quite new libraries, the outputs can be of mixed quality. For my current stack (Typescript, Node, Express, React 19, React Router 7, Drizzle and Tailwind 4) both Grok 3 (the paid one with 100k+ context) and Gemini 2.5 are pretty damn good. But I use them for prototyping, i.e. quickly putting together new stuff, for types, refactorings... I would never trust their output verbatim. (YET.) "Build an app that ..." would be a nightmare, but React-like UI code at sufficiently granular level is pretty much the best case scenario for LLMs as your components should be relatively isolated from the rest of the app and not too big anyways.
    - ambicapter 1y ago
      Yes, definitely. Act accordingly.
    - lovich 1y ago
      I use https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/services/intellicode/ https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/services/intellicode/ for my IDE which learns on your codebase, so it does end up saving me a ton of time after its learned my patterns and starts suggesting entire classes hooked up to the correct properties in my EF models. It lets me still have my own style preferences with the benefit of AI code generation. Bridged the barrier I had with code coming from Claude/ChatGPT/etc where its style preferences were based on the wider internets standards. This is probably a preference on the level of tabs vs spaces, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
signa11 1y ago
> ... Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch ... how ? the prompts have still to be typed right ? and then the output examined in earnest.
- fastball 1y ago
  A prompt can be as little as a sentence to write hundreds of lines of code.
  - shaky-carrousel 1y ago
    Hundreds of lines that you have to carefully read and understand.
    - victorbjorklund 1y ago
      Depends on what it is doing. A html template without JS? Enough to just check if it looks right and works.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      You also have to do that with code you write without LLM assistance.
    - fastball 1y ago
      Are you not doing that already? I go line-by-line through the code that I wrote (in my git client) before I stage+commit it.
      - shaky-carrousel 1y ago
        Yes, but you know the kind of code you write. When you re-check it, you are looking for minor typos, no major logic flaws affecting half the committed code.
      - nipah 1y ago
        You read at the same speed line-by-line your code when you are in your git client? You are doing something wrong. I go line-by-line through my code like 7x faster than I would do it for someone's else code, because I know what I wrote, my own intentions, my flow of coding and all of those details. I can just look at it en passant, while with AI code I need to carefully review every single detail and the connection between them to approve it.
zx8080 1y ago
> An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. It's a lie. The marketing one, to be specific, which makes it even worse.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  huh?
827a 1y ago
I tend to disagree, but I don't know what my disagreement means for the future of being able to use AI when writing software. This workers-oauth-provider project is 1200 lines of code. An expert should be able to write that on the scale of an hour. The main value I've gotten out of AI writing software comes from the two extremes; not from the middle-ground you present. Vibe coding can be great and seriously productive; but if I have to check it or manually maintain it in nearly any capacity more complicated than changing one string, productivity plummets. Conversely; delegating highly complex, isolated function writing to an AI can also be super productive, because it can (sometimes) showcase intelligence beyond mine and arrive at solutions which would take me 10x longer; but definitionally I am not the right person to check its code output; outside of maybe writing some unit tests for it (a third thing AI tends to be quite good at)
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  > An expert should be able to write that on the scale of an hour. An expert in oauth, perhaps. Not your typical expert dev who doesn't specialize in auth but rather in whatever he's using the auth for. Navigating those sorts of standards is extremely time consuming.
  - 827a 1y ago
    Maybe, but also: Cloudflare is one of like fifteen organizations on the planet writing code like this. The vast majority of The Rest Of Us will just consume code like this, which companies like Cloudflare, Auth0, etc write. That tends to be the nature of highly-specialized highly-domain-specific code. Cloudflare employs those mythical Oauth experts you talk about.
    - kentonv 1y ago
      That's me. I'm the expert. On my very most productive days of my entire career I've managed to produce ~1000 lines of code. This library is ~5000 (including comments, tests, and documentation, which you omitted for some reason). I managed to prompt it out of the AI over the course of about five days. But they were five days when I also had a lot of other things going on -- meetings, chats, code reviews, etc. Not my most productive. So I estimate it would have taken me 2x-5x longer to write this library by hand.
dismalaf 1y ago
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch Probably very language specific. I use a lot of Ruby, typing things takes no time it's so terse. Instead I get to spend 95% of my time pondering my problems (or prompting the LLM)...
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  It can create a whole dashboard view in elixir in a few seconds that is 100 lines long. No way I can type that in the same time.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    In my experience the problem is never creating the dashboard view (there's a million examples of it out there anyway to copy/paste), but making sense of the data. Especially if you're doing anything even remotely novel.
  - QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
    If you're making a dashboard view your productivity is zero, making it faster just multiplies zero by a bigger number. Edit: this comment was more a result of me being in a terrible mood than a true claim. Sorry.
- deepsun 1y ago
  With a proper IDE you don't type much even in Java/.Net, it's all autocomplete anyway. "Too verbose" complaints are mostly from Notepad lovers, and those who never needed to read somebody else's code.
blinded 1y ago
Sure! But over half the fun of coding is writing and learning.
noone_youknow 1y ago
For me, it’s not the typing - it’s the understanding. If I’m typing code, I have a mental model already or am building one as I type, whereas if I have an LLM generate the code then it’s “somebody else’s code” and I have to take the time to understand it anyway in order to usefully review it. Given that’s the case, I find it’s often quicker for me to just key the code myself, and come away with a better intuition for how it works at the end.

otabdeveloper4 1y ago

> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert. As an offline database of Google-tier knowledge, LLM's are useful. Though current LLM tech is half-baked, we need: a) Cheap commodity hardware for running your own models locally. (And by "locally" I mean separate dedicated devices, not something that fights over your desktop's or laptop's resources.) b) Standard bulletproof ways to fine-tune models on your own data. (Inference is already there mostly with things like llama.cpp, finetuning isn't.)

boruto 1y ago
I realize I procrastinate less when using LLM to write code which I know I could write.
- kentonv 1y ago
  I've noticed this too. I remember hearing somewhere that humans have a limited capacity in terms of number of decisions made in a day, and it seems to fit here: If I'm writing the code myself, I have to make several decisions on every line of code, and that's mentally tiring, so I tend to stop and procrastinate frequently. If an LLM is handling a lot of the details, then I'm just making higher-level decisions, allowing me to make more progress. Of course this is totally speculation and theories like this tend to be wrong, but it is at least consistent with how I feel.
  - autoexec 1y ago
    I have a feeling that it's something that might help today but also something you might pay for later. When you have to maintain or bug fix that same code down the line the fact that you were the one making all those higher-level decisions and thinking through the details gives you an advantage. Just having everything structured and named in ways that make the most sense to you seems like it'd be helpful the next time you have to deal with the code. While it's often a luxury, I'd much rather work on code I wrote than code somebody else wrote.
- nipah 1y ago
  Amazing, because I realized I procrastinate MORE when using LLM to write code which I know I could write. And not only that, I feel I'm losing the ability to do the coding myself and solve the problems myself when delegating this to the AI. Which is why no one should base their own decisions for life, like using or not using an LLM, on some random story from the internet.
brailsafe 1y ago
> No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert How could that possibly be true!? Seems like it'd be the same as suggesting being constrained to analog writing utensils wouldn't bottleneck the process of publishing a book or research paper. At the very least such a statement implies that people with ADHD can't be experts.
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago
  > How could that possibly be true!? (I'll assume you're not joking, because your post is ridiculous enough to look like sarcasm.) The answer is because programmers read code 10 times more (and think about code 100 times more) than they write it.
  - thisissomething 1y ago
    Yeah, but how fast can you write compared to how fast you think? How many times have you read a story card and by the time you finished reading it you thought "It's an easy task, should take me 1 hour of work to write the code and tests"? In my experience, in most of those cases the AI can do the same amount of code writing in under 10 minutes, leaving me the other 50 minutes to review the code, make/ask for any necessary adjustments, and move on to another task.
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      I don't know anyone who can think faster than they can type (on average), they would have to have an IQ over 150 or something. For mere mortals like myself, reasoning through edge cases and failure conditions and error handling and state invariants takes time. Time that I spend looking at a blinking cursor while the gears spin, or reading code. I've never finished a day where I thought to myself "gosh darn, if only I could type faster this would be done already".
      - skydhash 1y ago
        You could be fast if you were coding only the happy path, like a lot of juniors do. Instead of thinking about trivial things like malformed input, library semantics, framework gotchas and what not.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
Maybe you type faster than me then :) I for sure type slower than Claude code. :)

0points 1y ago

I really don't agree with the idea that expert time would just be spent typing, and I'd be really surprised if that's the common sentiment around here. An expert reasons, plans ahead, thinks and reasons a little bit more before even thinking about writing code. If you are measuring productivity by lines of code per hour then you don't understand what being a dev is.

brailsafe 1y ago
> I really don't agree with the idea that expert time would just be spent typing, and I'd be really surprised if that's the common sentiment around here. They didn't suggest that at all, they merely suggested that the component of the expert's work that would otherwise be spent typing can be saved, while the rest of their utility comes from intense scrutiny, problem solving, decision making about what to build and why, and everything else that comes from experience and domain understanding.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  It's not just time spent typing. Figuring out what needs to be typed can be both draining and time consuming. It's often (but not always) much easier to review someone else's solution to the problem than it is to solve it from scratch on your own. Oddly enough security critical flows are likely to be one of the few exceptions because catching subtle reasoning errors that won't trip any unit tests when reviewing code that you didn't write is extremely difficult.
  - oblio 1y ago
    The problem is, building something IS the destination. At least the first 5-10 times. Building and fixing along the way is what builds lasting knowledge for most people.
  - nipah 1y ago
    > It's not just time spent typing. Figuring out what needs to be typed can be both draining and time consuming. It's often (but not always) much easier to review someone else's solution to the problem than it is to solve it from scratch on your own. This is EXTREMELY false. When you write the code you [remember] it, it's fresh in your head, you [know] what it is doing and exactly what it's supposed to do. This is why debugging a codebase you didn't wrote is harder than one you wrote, if a bug happens you know exactly the spots it could be happening at and you can easily go and check them.

Vinnl 1y ago

At least for me, I'm fairly sure that I'm better at not adding security flaws to my code (which I'm already not perfect at!) than I am at spotting them in code that I didn't write, unfortunately.

bryant 1y ago
They're different mindsets. Some folks are better editors, inspectors, auditors, etc, whereas some are better builders, creators, and drafters. So what you're saying makes sense. And I'm definitely on the other side of that fence.
- blueflow 1y ago
  When you form a mental model and then write code from that, thats a very lossy transformation. You can write comments and documentation to make it less lossy, but there will be information that is lost to an reviewer, who has to spend great effort to recreate it. If it is unknown how code is supposed to behave, then it becomes physically impossible to verify it for correctness. This is less a matter of "mindset", but more a general problem of information.
  - b112 1y ago
    Whether reviewer or creator, if the start conditions / problem is known, both start with the same info. "code base must do X with Y conditions" The reviewer is at no disadvantage, other than the ability to walk the problem without coding.
    - blueflow 1y ago
      This is the ideal case where the produced code is well readable and commented so its intent is obvious. The worst case is an intern or LLM having generated some code where the intent is not obvious and them not being able to explain the intent behind it. "How is that even related to the ticket"-style code.
- namblooc 1y ago

XCSme 1y ago

> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. In my experience, it takes longer to debug/instruct the LLM than to write it from scratch.

Culonavirus 1y ago
Depends on what you're doing. For example when you're writing something like React components and using something like Tailwind for styling, I find the speedup is close to 10X.
- azemetre 1y ago
  Isn’t this because the LLMs had like a million+ react tutorials/articles/books/repos to train on? I mean I try to use them for svelte or vue and it still recommends react snippets sometimes.
  - Culonavirus 1y ago
    Generally speaking, "LLMs" that I use are always the latest thinking versions of the flagship models (Grok 3/Gemini 2.5/...). GPT4o (and equivalent) are a mess. But you're correct, when you use more exotic and/or quite new libraries, the outputs can be of mixed quality. For my current stack (Typescript, Node, Express, React 19, React Router 7, Drizzle and Tailwind 4) both Grok 3 (the paid one with 100k+ context) and Gemini 2.5 are pretty damn good. But I use them for prototyping, i.e. quickly putting together new stuff, for types, refactorings... I would never trust their output verbatim. (YET.) "Build an app that ..." would be a nightmare, but React-like UI code at sufficiently granular level is pretty much the best case scenario for LLMs as your components should be relatively isolated from the rest of the app and not too big anyways.
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    Yes, definitely. Act accordingly.
  - lovich 1y ago
    I use https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/services/intellicode/ https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/services/intellicode/ for my IDE which learns on your codebase, so it does end up saving me a ton of time after its learned my patterns and starts suggesting entire classes hooked up to the correct properties in my EF models. It lets me still have my own style preferences with the benefit of AI code generation. Bridged the barrier I had with code coming from Claude/ChatGPT/etc where its style preferences were based on the wider internets standards. This is probably a preference on the level of tabs vs spaces, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

signa11 1y ago

> ... Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch ... how ? the prompts have still to be typed right ? and then the output examined in earnest.

fastball 1y ago
A prompt can be as little as a sentence to write hundreds of lines of code.
- shaky-carrousel 1y ago
  Hundreds of lines that you have to carefully read and understand.
  - victorbjorklund 1y ago
    Depends on what it is doing. A html template without JS? Enough to just check if it looks right and works.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    You also have to do that with code you write without LLM assistance.
  - fastball 1y ago
    Are you not doing that already? I go line-by-line through the code that I wrote (in my git client) before I stage+commit it.
    - shaky-carrousel 1y ago
      Yes, but you know the kind of code you write. When you re-check it, you are looking for minor typos, no major logic flaws affecting half the committed code.
    - nipah 1y ago
      You read at the same speed line-by-line your code when you are in your git client? You are doing something wrong. I go line-by-line through my code like 7x faster than I would do it for someone's else code, because I know what I wrote, my own intentions, my flow of coding and all of those details. I can just look at it en passant, while with AI code I need to carefully review every single detail and the connection between them to approve it.

zx8080 1y ago

> An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. It's a lie. The marketing one, to be specific, which makes it even worse.

victorbjorklund 1y ago
huh?

827a 1y ago

I tend to disagree, but I don't know what my disagreement means for the future of being able to use AI when writing software. This workers-oauth-provider project is 1200 lines of code. An expert should be able to write that on the scale of an hour. The main value I've gotten out of AI writing software comes from the two extremes; not from the middle-ground you present. Vibe coding can be great and seriously productive; but if I have to check it or manually maintain it in nearly any capacity more complicated than changing one string, productivity plummets. Conversely; delegating highly complex, isolated function writing to an AI can also be super productive, because it can (sometimes) showcase intelligence beyond mine and arrive at solutions which would take me 10x longer; but definitionally I am not the right person to check its code output; outside of maybe writing some unit tests for it (a third thing AI tends to be quite good at)

fc417fc802 1y ago
> An expert should be able to write that on the scale of an hour. An expert in oauth, perhaps. Not your typical expert dev who doesn't specialize in auth but rather in whatever he's using the auth for. Navigating those sorts of standards is extremely time consuming.
- 827a 1y ago
  Maybe, but also: Cloudflare is one of like fifteen organizations on the planet writing code like this. The vast majority of The Rest Of Us will just consume code like this, which companies like Cloudflare, Auth0, etc write. That tends to be the nature of highly-specialized highly-domain-specific code. Cloudflare employs those mythical Oauth experts you talk about.
  - kentonv 1y ago
    That's me. I'm the expert. On my very most productive days of my entire career I've managed to produce ~1000 lines of code. This library is ~5000 (including comments, tests, and documentation, which you omitted for some reason). I managed to prompt it out of the AI over the course of about five days. But they were five days when I also had a lot of other things going on -- meetings, chats, code reviews, etc. Not my most productive. So I estimate it would have taken me 2x-5x longer to write this library by hand.

dismalaf 1y ago

> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch Probably very language specific. I use a lot of Ruby, typing things takes no time it's so terse. Instead I get to spend 95% of my time pondering my problems (or prompting the LLM)...

victorbjorklund 1y ago
It can create a whole dashboard view in elixir in a few seconds that is 100 lines long. No way I can type that in the same time.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  In my experience the problem is never creating the dashboard view (there's a million examples of it out there anyway to copy/paste), but making sense of the data. Especially if you're doing anything even remotely novel.
- QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
  If you're making a dashboard view your productivity is zero, making it faster just multiplies zero by a bigger number. Edit: this comment was more a result of me being in a terrible mood than a true claim. Sorry.
deepsun 1y ago
With a proper IDE you don't type much even in Java/.Net, it's all autocomplete anyway. "Too verbose" complaints are mostly from Notepad lovers, and those who never needed to read somebody else's code.

blinded 1y ago

Sure! But over half the fun of coding is writing and learning.

noone_youknow 1y ago

For me, it’s not the typing - it’s the understanding. If I’m typing code, I have a mental model already or am building one as I type, whereas if I have an LLM generate the code then it’s “somebody else’s code” and I have to take the time to understand it anyway in order to usefully review it. Given that’s the case, I find it’s often quicker for me to just key the code myself, and come away with a better intuition for how it works at the end.