4 ms·

I disagree strongly at this point. The code is generally good if the prompt was reasonable at this point but also every test possible is now being written, ever

I disagree strongly at this point. The code is generally good if the prompt was reasonable at this point but also every test possible is now being written, every ui element has the all required traits, every function has the correct documentation attached, the million little refactors to improve the codebase are being done, etc. Someone told me ‘ai makes all the little things trivial to do’ and i agree strongly with that. Those many little things are things that together make a strong statement about quality. Our codebase has gone up in quality significantly with ai whereas we’d let the little things slide due to understaffing before.

0x696C6961 1y ago
> The code is generally good if the prompt was reasonable The point is writing that prompt takes longer than writing the code. > Someone told me ‘ai makes all the little things trivial to do’ and i agree strongly with that Yeah, it's great for doing all of those little things. It's bad at doing the big things.
- diggan 1y ago
  > The point is writing that prompt takes longer than writing the code. Luckily we can reuse system prompts :) Mine usually contains something like https://gist.github.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d3137398 https://gist.github.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d313... + project-specific instructions, which is reused across sessions. Currently, it does not take the same amount of time to prompt as if I was to write the code.
- lubujackson 1y ago
  Have to disagree with this too - ask an LLM to architect a project, or propose a cleaner solution and usually does a good job. Where it still sucks is doing both at once. Thus the shift to integrating "to do" lists in Cursor. My flow has shifted to "design this feature" then "continue to implement" 10 times in a row with code review between each step.
troupo 1y ago
> The code is generally good if the prompt was reasonable at this point Which, again, is 100% unverifiable and cannot be generalized. As described in the article. How do I know this? Because, as I said in the article, I use these tools daily. And "prompt was reasonable" is a yet another magical incantation that may or may not work. Here's my experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44470144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44470144

0x696C6961 1y ago

> The code is generally good if the prompt was reasonable The point is writing that prompt takes longer than writing the code. > Someone told me ‘ai makes all the little things trivial to do’ and i agree strongly with that Yeah, it's great for doing all of those little things. It's bad at doing the big things.

diggan 1y ago
> The point is writing that prompt takes longer than writing the code. Luckily we can reuse system prompts :) Mine usually contains something like https://gist.github.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d3137398 https://gist.github.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d313... + project-specific instructions, which is reused across sessions. Currently, it does not take the same amount of time to prompt as if I was to write the code.
lubujackson 1y ago
Have to disagree with this too - ask an LLM to architect a project, or propose a cleaner solution and usually does a good job. Where it still sucks is doing both at once. Thus the shift to integrating "to do" lists in Cursor. My flow has shifted to "design this feature" then "continue to implement" 10 times in a row with code review between each step.

troupo 1y ago

> The code is generally good if the prompt was reasonable at this point Which, again, is 100% unverifiable and cannot be generalized. As described in the article. How do I know this? Because, as I said in the article, I use these tools daily. And "prompt was reasonable" is a yet another magical incantation that may or may not work. Here's my experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44470144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44470144