3 ms·
Absolutely. It's augmentation not automation, it does what I want or it gets the hose again. You make the framework and it colours in the lines. If you don't d
by cmrdporcupine 1y ago
Absolutely. It's augmentation not automation, it does what I want or it gets the hose again.
You make the framework and it colours in the lines. If you don't draw the pattern first you're going to get a kindergarten mess. There are times I'm amazed by its suggestions but it will also cheat and "lie" and if you're not paying attention, you'll miss it.
But these days many tasks for me consist of: I need this, look how I did it here before, and follow this exact pattern through to the end and write tests, too. And the results are usually exactly what I would have done. Because it is an excellent mimic. But if I hadn't put the work into the framework, it would be awful.
- chamomeal 1y agoIt’ll cheat a lot when writing unit tests. Particularly “agentic” tools like cursor. It’ll get a test to pass, even if it’s against a laughably incorrect implementation. I’ve ended up with tests called stuff like “foobar successfully returns impossible value that suggests programmer error” lmao
- mikeocool 1y agoMy favorite thing Claude code has been doing recently is adding second totally separate implementation of whatever I asked it to write tests for, and writing the tests against that. Conveniently, when it then changes the original implementation, the tests don’t fail!
- queenkjuul 1y agoThis is just about the only type of test i see it write lol
- cmrdporcupine 1y agoYeah, or "bug was pre-existing and not my fault so shrug, here's a TODO and we'll just say it passed" (not those exact words, but close)
- csar 1y ago“70% of tests pass. This codebase is ready for production!”