5 ms·

> and you know exactly what I'm describing. I won't unless both you and I have a shared context which will tie each of these concept to a specific thing. You s

> and you know exactly what I'm describing. I won't unless both you and I have a shared context which will tie each of these concept to a specific thing. You said "async function", and there's a lot of languages that don't have that concept. And what about the permissions of the s3 bucket, what's the initial time of the wait time? And what algorithm for the resizing? What if someone sent us a very big image (let say the maximum that the standard allows). These are still logic questions that have not been addressed. The thing is that general programming languages are general. We do have constructs like procedure/functions and class, that allows us for a more specialized notation, but that's a skill to acquire (like writing clear and informative text). So in pseudo lisp, the code would be like (defun fn (bytes) (when-let\* ((png (byte2png bytes)) (valid (and (valid-png-p png) (square-res-p png))) (small-png (resize-image png)) (bucket (get-env "IMAGE_BUCKET")) (filename (uuid))) (do-retry :backoff 'exp (s3-upload bucket small-png)))) And in pseudo prolog square(P) :- width(P, W), height(P, H), W is H. validpng(P, X) :- a whole list of clauses that parses X and build up P, square(P). resizepng(P) :- bigger(100,100, P), scale(100, 100, P). smallpng(P, X) :- validpng(P, X), resizepng(P). s3upload(P): env("IMAGE_BUCKET", B), s3_put(P, B, (exp_backoff(100)))) fn(X) :- smallpng(P, X), s3upload(P) So what you've left is all the details. It's great if someone already have an library that already does the thing, and the functions has the same signature, but more often than not, there isn't something like that. Code can be as highlevel as you want and very close to natural language. Where people spend time is the implementation of the lower level and dealing with all the failure modes.

buu700 1y ago
Details like the language/stack and S3 configuration would presumably be somewhere else in the spec, not in the description of that particular function. The fact that you're able to confidently take what I wrote and stretch it into pseudocode with zero deviation from my intended meaning proves my point.
- skydhash 1y ago
  To draft a spec like this, it would take more time and the same or more knowledge than to just write the code. And you still won’t have reliable results, without doing another lengthy pass to correct the generated code. I can create a pseudocode because I know the relevant paradigm as well as how to design software. There’s no way you can have a novice draft pseudo-code like this because they can’t abstract well and discern intent behind abstractions.
  - buu700 1y ago
    I don't agree that it would take more time. Drafting detailed requirements like that to feed into coding agents is a big part of how I work nowadays, and the difference is night and day. I certainly didn't spend as much time typing that function description as I would have spent writing a functional version of it in any given language. Collaborating with AI also speeds this up a lot. For example, it's much faster to have the AI write a code snippet involving a dependency/API and manually verify the code's correctness for inclusion in the spec than it is to read though documentation and write the same code by hand. The feat of implementing that function based on my description is well within the capabilities of AI. Grok did it in under 30 seconds, and I don't see any obvious mistakes at first glance: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_fa68bae1-3436-404b-bf9e-0915986bbdaf https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_fa68bae1-3436-404b-bf9e-09....
    - skydhash 1y ago
      I don't have access to the grok sample you've shared (service not available in my region) Reading the documentation is mostly for gotchas and understanding the subsystem you're going to incorporate in your software. You can not design something that will use GTK or sndio without understanding the core concepts of those technologies. And if you know the concepts, then I will say it's easier and faster to write the code than to write such specs. As for finding samples, it's easy on the web. Especially with GitHub search. But these days, I often take a look at the source code of the library itself, because I often got questions that the documentation don't have the answer for. It's not about what the code I wrote may do (which is trivial to know) but what it cannot do at all.

buu700 1y ago

Details like the language/stack and S3 configuration would presumably be somewhere else in the spec, not in the description of that particular function. The fact that you're able to confidently take what I wrote and stretch it into pseudocode with zero deviation from my intended meaning proves my point.

skydhash 1y ago
To draft a spec like this, it would take more time and the same or more knowledge than to just write the code. And you still won’t have reliable results, without doing another lengthy pass to correct the generated code. I can create a pseudocode because I know the relevant paradigm as well as how to design software. There’s no way you can have a novice draft pseudo-code like this because they can’t abstract well and discern intent behind abstractions.
- buu700 1y ago
  I don't agree that it would take more time. Drafting detailed requirements like that to feed into coding agents is a big part of how I work nowadays, and the difference is night and day. I certainly didn't spend as much time typing that function description as I would have spent writing a functional version of it in any given language. Collaborating with AI also speeds this up a lot. For example, it's much faster to have the AI write a code snippet involving a dependency/API and manually verify the code's correctness for inclusion in the spec than it is to read though documentation and write the same code by hand. The feat of implementing that function based on my description is well within the capabilities of AI. Grok did it in under 30 seconds, and I don't see any obvious mistakes at first glance: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_fa68bae1-3436-404b-bf9e-0915986bbdaf https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_fa68bae1-3436-404b-bf9e-09....
  - skydhash 1y ago
    I don't have access to the grok sample you've shared (service not available in my region) Reading the documentation is mostly for gotchas and understanding the subsystem you're going to incorporate in your software. You can not design something that will use GTK or sndio without understanding the core concepts of those technologies. And if you know the concepts, then I will say it's easier and faster to write the code than to write such specs. As for finding samples, it's easy on the web. Especially with GitHub search. But these days, I often take a look at the source code of the library itself, because I often got questions that the documentation don't have the answer for. It's not about what the code I wrote may do (which is trivial to know) but what it cannot do at all.