4 ms·
I mostly agree, but why stop at tests? Shouldn’t it be spec driven development? Then neither the code or the language matter. Wouldn’t user stories and requirem
by pcarolan 11mo ago
I mostly agree, but why stop at tests? Shouldn’t it be spec driven development? Then neither the code or the language matter. Wouldn’t user stories and requirements à la bdd (see cucumber) be the right abstraction?
- reenorap 11mo agoI don't think you're wrong but I feel like there's a big bridge between the spec and the code. I think the tests are the part that will be able to give the AI enough context to "get it right" quicker. It's sort of like a director telling an AI the high level plot of a movie, vs giving an AI the actual storyboards. The storyboards will better capture the vision of the director vs just a high level plot description, in my opinion.
- __MatrixMan__ 11mo agoMaybe one day. I find myself doing plenty of course correction at the test level. Safely zooming out doesn't feel imminent.
- gmd63 11mo agoWhy stop there? Whichever shareholders flood the datacenter with the most electrical signals get the most profits.
- int_19h 11mo agoNatural language is too ambiguous for this, which makes it impossible to automatically verify What you need is indeed spec-driven development, but specs need to be written in some kind of language that allows for more formal verification. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract, basically. It is extremely ironic that, instead, the two languages that LLMs are the most proficient in - and thus the ones most heavily used for AI coding - are JavaScript and Python...