11 ms·

I wonder how many people that use agents actually like "programming", as in coming up with a solution to the problem and then being able to express that in code

I wonder how many people that use agents actually like "programming", as in coming up with a solution to the problem and then being able to express that in code. It seems like a lot of the work that the agents are doing is removing that and instead making you have to explain what you want in natural language and hope the LLM doesn't introduce bugs

quantumHazer 1y ago
Exactly. Also related on why Natural Language is not really good for programming[0] [0]: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667... Anyway I indeed find LLMs useful for stackoverflow-like programming questions. But this seems to not be true for long as SO is dying and updated data on this type of questions will shrink I think.
hombre_fatal 1y ago
I like writing code, and it definitely isn't satisfying when an LLM can one-shot a parser that I would have had fun building for hours. But at the same time, building a parser for hours is also a distraction from my higher level ambitions with the project, and I get to focus on those. I still get to stub out the types and function signatures I want, but the LLM can fill them in and I move on. More likely I'll even have my go at the implementation but then tag in the LLM when it's not fun anymore. On the other hand, LLMs have helped me focus on the fun of polishing something. Making sweeping changes are no longer in the realm of "it'd be nice but I can't be bothered". Generating a bunch of tests from examples isn't grueling anymore. Syncing code to the readme isn't annoying anymore. Coming up with refactoring/improvement ideas is easy; just ask and tell it to make the case for you. It has let me be far more ambitious or take a weekend project to a whole new level, and that's fun. It's actually a software-loving builder's paradise if you can tweak your mindset. You can polish more code, release more projects, tackle more nerdsnipes, and aim much higher. But it took me a while to get over what turned out to be some sort of resentment.
- bubblyworld 1y ago
  I agree, agents have really made programming fun for me again (and I say this as someone who has been coding for more two decades - I'm not a script kiddy using them to make up for lack of skill). Configuring tools, mindless refactors, boilerplate, basic unit/property testing, all that routine stuff is a thing of the past for me now. It used to be a serious blocker for me with my personal projects! Getting bored before I got anywhere interesting. Much of the time I can stick to writing the fun/critical code now and glue everything else together with LLMs, which is awesome. Some people obviously like the fiddly stuff though, and more power to them, it's just not for me.
- Verdex 1y ago
  Parsing is an area that I'm interested in. Can you talk more about your experience getting LLMs to one-shot parsers? From scratch LLMs seem to be completely lost writing parsers. The bleeding edge appears to be able to maybe parse xml, but gives up on programming languages with even the most minimal complexity (an example being C where Gemini refused to even try with macros and then when told to parse C without macros gave an answer with several stubs where I was supposed to fill in the details). With parsing libraries they seem better, but ultimately that reduces to transform this bnf. Which if I had to I could do deterministically without an LLM. Also, my best 'successes' have been along the lines of 'parse in this well defined language that just happens to have dozens if not hundreds of verbatim examples on github'. Anytime I try to give examples of a hypothetical language then they return a bunch of regex that would not work in general.
  - wrs 1y ago
    A few weeks ago I gave an LLM (Gemini 2.5 something in Cursor) a bunch of examples of a new language, and asked it to write a recursive descent parser in Ruby. The language was nothing crazy, intentionally reminiscent of C/JS style, but certainly the exact definition was new. I didn’t want to use a parser generator because (a) I’d have to learn a new one for Ruby, and (b) I’ve always found it easier to generate useful error messages with a handwritten recursive descent parser. IIRC, it went like this: I had it first write out the BNF based on the examples, and tweaked that a bit to match my intention. Then I had it write the lexer, and a bunch of tests for the lexer. I had it rewrite the lexer to use one big regex with named captures per token. Then I told it to write the parser. I told it to try again using a consistent style in the parser functions (when to do lookahead and how to do backtracking) and it rewrote it. I told it to write a bunch of parser tests, which I tweaked and refactored for readability (with LLM doing the grunt work). During this process it fixed most of its own bugs based on looking at failed tests. Throughout this process I had to monitor every step and fix the occasional stupidity and wrong turn, but it felt like using a power tool, you just have to keep it aimed the right way so it does what you want. The end result worked just fine, the code is quite readable and maintainable, and I’ve continued with that codebase since. That was a day of work that would have taken me more like a week without the LLM. And there is no parser generator I’m aware of that starts with examples rather than a grammar.
qsort 1y ago
I have to flip the question, what is it that people like about it? I certainly don't enjoy writing code for problems that have already been solved a thousand times. We reach for a dictionary, we don't write a hash table from scratch every time, that's only fun the first time you do it. If I could go "give me a working compiler for this language" or "solve this problem using a depth-first search" I wouldn't enjoy programming any less. About the natural language and also in response to the sibling comment, I agree, natural language is a very poor tool to describe computational processes. It's like doing math in plain English, fine for toy examples, but at a certain level of sophistication it's way too easy to say imprecise or even completely contradictory things. But nobody here advocates using LLMs "blind"! You're still responsible for your own output, whether it was generated or not.
- voidUpdate 1y ago
  Why do people enjoy going to the gym? Those weights have already been lifted a thousand times. I enjoy writing code because of the satisfaction that comes from solving a problem, from being able to create a working thing out of my own head, and to hopefully see myself getting better at programming. I could augment my programming abilities with an LLM in the same way you could augment your gym experience with a forklift. I like to do it because I'm doing it. If I could go "give me a working compiler for this language", I wouldn't enjoy it anymore, because I've not gained anything from it. Obviously I don't re-implement a dictionary every time I need one, because its part of the "standard library" of basically everything I code in. And if it isn't, part of the fun is the challenge of either working out another way to do it, or reimplementing it.
  - infecto 1y ago
    Different strokes for different folks. I have written crud apps and other simple implementations thousands of times it feels like. My satisfaction is derived from building something useful not just the sale of building.
  - qsort 1y ago
    We are talking past each other here. Once I solved an Advent of Code problem, I felt like the problem wasn't general enough, so I solved the more general version as well. I like programming to the point of doing imaginary homework, then writing myself some extra credit and doing that as well. Way too much for my own good. The point is that solving a new problem is interesting. Solving a problem you already know exactly how to solve isn't interesting and isn't even intellectual exercise. I would gain approximately zero from writing a new hash table from scratch whenever I needed one instead of just using std::map. Problem solving absolutely is a muscle and it's use it or lose it, but you don't train problem solving by solving the same problem over and over.
infecto 1y ago
Don’t agree with the assessment. At this point most of what I find LLM taking over is all the repetitive crud like implementations. I am still doing what I consider the fun parts, architecting the project and solving what are still the hard parts for the LLM, the non crud parts. This could be gone in a year and maybe I become a glorified product manager but enjoying it for the time being l, I can focus on the real thought problems and get help lifting the crud or repetitive patterns.
- voidUpdate 1y ago
  If you keep asking an LLM to generate the same repetitive implementations, why not just have a basic project already set up that you can modify as needed?
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    Yeah, I don't really get this Most boilerplate I write has a template that I can copy and paste then run a couple of "find and replace" on and get going right away This is not a substantial blocker or time investment that an AI can save me imo
    - infecto 1y ago
      YMMV. No boilerplate is exactly the same, there is usually some level of business logic or customization. With current gen I can point to a couple different files, maybe db models, and write a quick spec in 30 seconds and let it run in the background implementing the backend routes I want. I can do other valuable things in parallel, I can also point it to my FE to implement the api calls to the BE. It’s for me much quicker than a template which I am still customizing. Is it a substantial blocker? Nope, but it’s like I outsourced all the boilerplate by writing a sentence or two.
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      It is though, because it can do a pretty good job of every template. I remember what I revelation it was a million years ago or so when rails came along with its "scaffold". That was a huge productivity boost. But it just did one specific thing, crud MVC. Now we have a pretty decent "scaffold" capability, but not just for crud MVC, but for anything you can describe or point to examples of.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
crawshaw 1y ago
Author here. I like programming and I like agents.
namaria 1y ago
Most coders prefer to throw code at the wall and see what sticks. These tools are a gas-powered catapult. I don't think anyone is wrong, I am not here to detract from this. I just think most people want things that are very different than what I want.

quantumHazer 1y ago

Exactly. Also related on why Natural Language is not really good for programming[0] [0]: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667... Anyway I indeed find LLMs useful for stackoverflow-like programming questions. But this seems to not be true for long as SO is dying and updated data on this type of questions will shrink I think.

hombre_fatal 1y ago

I like writing code, and it definitely isn't satisfying when an LLM can one-shot a parser that I would have had fun building for hours. But at the same time, building a parser for hours is also a distraction from my higher level ambitions with the project, and I get to focus on those. I still get to stub out the types and function signatures I want, but the LLM can fill them in and I move on. More likely I'll even have my go at the implementation but then tag in the LLM when it's not fun anymore. On the other hand, LLMs have helped me focus on the fun of polishing something. Making sweeping changes are no longer in the realm of "it'd be nice but I can't be bothered". Generating a bunch of tests from examples isn't grueling anymore. Syncing code to the readme isn't annoying anymore. Coming up with refactoring/improvement ideas is easy; just ask and tell it to make the case for you. It has let me be far more ambitious or take a weekend project to a whole new level, and that's fun. It's actually a software-loving builder's paradise if you can tweak your mindset. You can polish more code, release more projects, tackle more nerdsnipes, and aim much higher. But it took me a while to get over what turned out to be some sort of resentment.

bubblyworld 1y ago
I agree, agents have really made programming fun for me again (and I say this as someone who has been coding for more two decades - I'm not a script kiddy using them to make up for lack of skill). Configuring tools, mindless refactors, boilerplate, basic unit/property testing, all that routine stuff is a thing of the past for me now. It used to be a serious blocker for me with my personal projects! Getting bored before I got anywhere interesting. Much of the time I can stick to writing the fun/critical code now and glue everything else together with LLMs, which is awesome. Some people obviously like the fiddly stuff though, and more power to them, it's just not for me.
Verdex 1y ago
Parsing is an area that I'm interested in. Can you talk more about your experience getting LLMs to one-shot parsers? From scratch LLMs seem to be completely lost writing parsers. The bleeding edge appears to be able to maybe parse xml, but gives up on programming languages with even the most minimal complexity (an example being C where Gemini refused to even try with macros and then when told to parse C without macros gave an answer with several stubs where I was supposed to fill in the details). With parsing libraries they seem better, but ultimately that reduces to transform this bnf. Which if I had to I could do deterministically without an LLM. Also, my best 'successes' have been along the lines of 'parse in this well defined language that just happens to have dozens if not hundreds of verbatim examples on github'. Anytime I try to give examples of a hypothetical language then they return a bunch of regex that would not work in general.
- wrs 1y ago
  A few weeks ago I gave an LLM (Gemini 2.5 something in Cursor) a bunch of examples of a new language, and asked it to write a recursive descent parser in Ruby. The language was nothing crazy, intentionally reminiscent of C/JS style, but certainly the exact definition was new. I didn’t want to use a parser generator because (a) I’d have to learn a new one for Ruby, and (b) I’ve always found it easier to generate useful error messages with a handwritten recursive descent parser. IIRC, it went like this: I had it first write out the BNF based on the examples, and tweaked that a bit to match my intention. Then I had it write the lexer, and a bunch of tests for the lexer. I had it rewrite the lexer to use one big regex with named captures per token. Then I told it to write the parser. I told it to try again using a consistent style in the parser functions (when to do lookahead and how to do backtracking) and it rewrote it. I told it to write a bunch of parser tests, which I tweaked and refactored for readability (with LLM doing the grunt work). During this process it fixed most of its own bugs based on looking at failed tests. Throughout this process I had to monitor every step and fix the occasional stupidity and wrong turn, but it felt like using a power tool, you just have to keep it aimed the right way so it does what you want. The end result worked just fine, the code is quite readable and maintainable, and I’ve continued with that codebase since. That was a day of work that would have taken me more like a week without the LLM. And there is no parser generator I’m aware of that starts with examples rather than a grammar.

qsort 1y ago

I have to flip the question, what is it that people like about it? I certainly don't enjoy writing code for problems that have already been solved a thousand times. We reach for a dictionary, we don't write a hash table from scratch every time, that's only fun the first time you do it. If I could go "give me a working compiler for this language" or "solve this problem using a depth-first search" I wouldn't enjoy programming any less. About the natural language and also in response to the sibling comment, I agree, natural language is a very poor tool to describe computational processes. It's like doing math in plain English, fine for toy examples, but at a certain level of sophistication it's way too easy to say imprecise or even completely contradictory things. But nobody here advocates using LLMs "blind"! You're still responsible for your own output, whether it was generated or not.

voidUpdate 1y ago
Why do people enjoy going to the gym? Those weights have already been lifted a thousand times. I enjoy writing code because of the satisfaction that comes from solving a problem, from being able to create a working thing out of my own head, and to hopefully see myself getting better at programming. I could augment my programming abilities with an LLM in the same way you could augment your gym experience with a forklift. I like to do it because I'm doing it. If I could go "give me a working compiler for this language", I wouldn't enjoy it anymore, because I've not gained anything from it. Obviously I don't re-implement a dictionary every time I need one, because its part of the "standard library" of basically everything I code in. And if it isn't, part of the fun is the challenge of either working out another way to do it, or reimplementing it.
- infecto 1y ago
  Different strokes for different folks. I have written crud apps and other simple implementations thousands of times it feels like. My satisfaction is derived from building something useful not just the sale of building.
- qsort 1y ago
  We are talking past each other here. Once I solved an Advent of Code problem, I felt like the problem wasn't general enough, so I solved the more general version as well. I like programming to the point of doing imaginary homework, then writing myself some extra credit and doing that as well. Way too much for my own good. The point is that solving a new problem is interesting. Solving a problem you already know exactly how to solve isn't interesting and isn't even intellectual exercise. I would gain approximately zero from writing a new hash table from scratch whenever I needed one instead of just using std::map. Problem solving absolutely is a muscle and it's use it or lose it, but you don't train problem solving by solving the same problem over and over.

infecto 1y ago

Don’t agree with the assessment. At this point most of what I find LLM taking over is all the repetitive crud like implementations. I am still doing what I consider the fun parts, architecting the project and solving what are still the hard parts for the LLM, the non crud parts. This could be gone in a year and maybe I become a glorified product manager but enjoying it for the time being l, I can focus on the real thought problems and get help lifting the crud or repetitive patterns.

voidUpdate 1y ago
If you keep asking an LLM to generate the same repetitive implementations, why not just have a basic project already set up that you can modify as needed?
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  Yeah, I don't really get this Most boilerplate I write has a template that I can copy and paste then run a couple of "find and replace" on and get going right away This is not a substantial blocker or time investment that an AI can save me imo
  - infecto 1y ago
    YMMV. No boilerplate is exactly the same, there is usually some level of business logic or customization. With current gen I can point to a couple different files, maybe db models, and write a quick spec in 30 seconds and let it run in the background implementing the backend routes I want. I can do other valuable things in parallel, I can also point it to my FE to implement the api calls to the BE. It’s for me much quicker than a template which I am still customizing. Is it a substantial blocker? Nope, but it’s like I outsourced all the boilerplate by writing a sentence or two.
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    It is though, because it can do a pretty good job of every template. I remember what I revelation it was a million years ago or so when rails came along with its "scaffold". That was a huge productivity boost. But it just did one specific thing, crud MVC. Now we have a pretty decent "scaffold" capability, but not just for crud MVC, but for anything you can describe or point to examples of.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

crawshaw 1y ago

Author here. I like programming and I like agents.

namaria 1y ago

Most coders prefer to throw code at the wall and see what sticks. These tools are a gas-powered catapult. I don't think anyone is wrong, I am not here to detract from this. I just think most people want things that are very different than what I want.