3 ms·
I think I disagree with the premise. If the assertion is, I want to use non-LLM methods to maintain LLM-generated code, then I agree, there is a looming proble
by efitz 1y ago
I think I disagree with the premise.
If the assertion is, I want to use non-LLM methods to maintain LLM-generated code, then I agree, there is a looming problem.
The solution to making LLM-generated code maintainable involves:
1) Using good design practices before generating the code, e.g. have a design and write it down. This is a good practice regardless of maintainability issues because it is part of how you get good results getting LLMs to generate code.
2) Keeping a record of the prompts that you used to generate the code, as part of the code. Do NOT exclude CLAUDE.md from your git repo, for instance, and extract and save your prompts.
3) Maintain the code with LLMs, if you generated it with LLMs.
Mandatory car analogy:
Of course there was a looming maintenance problem when the automobile was introduced, because livery stables were unprepared to deal with messy, unpredictable automobiles.
- righthand 1y agoYou’re suggesting software design principles to a world where people are trying to escape having to learn (anything) software design principles. The only thing Llm users largely want is to say “computer do thing”.
- ModernMech 1y agoHaving to do this pretty much destroys the value proposition that AI companies are pushing though. At best, what this means is that current software shops can write taller software stacks. Which is valuable, don't get me wrong. But the value proposition, the fantasy of LLMs, is that they will be able to replace your entire development team. If all it does is make the dev team 15% more capable -- because no one else has the knowledge to use it -- that's not a trillion dollar world-shifting technology, it's just another layer in the tech stack.