3 ms·

"AI" generated code often has a number of styles in the same functions or modules. In an "AI" generated bash program I recently reviewed, the code had both "if

"AI" generated code often has a number of styles in the same functions or modules. In an "AI" generated bash program I recently reviewed, the code had both "if [ testtesttest ]" and "if [[ testtesttest ]]" styles along with different styles of testing lexical equality. It also had a globbing test I'd never seen before, something like "if [[ $X = *"string"* ]]". It works, but wow, ugly. The new bash program looked old, like someone with a distinct set of preferences wrote it years ago and 2 or 3 maintainers had hacked on it, being less careful to keep a consistent style. That sort of thing would be judged low quality legacy code 5 years ago. It's harder for a human to understand, and since it just might depend on a peculiarity of "=" vs "==" vs "-eq", people make minimum changes or maybe no change at all. That's one way "low quality" you seek is exhibited.

chaidhat 11mo ago
Thank you for the reply and the well thought-out example. This is a good point on garbage in => garbage out as someone else said. Interestingly, the opposite may be true for newer languages: I wrote my frontend in dart over three years in a very C way where getters and setters are just functions. However, after introducing LLMs to my codebase, it started using `get`s and `set`s keywords (which is the newer way). I have a question on personal preference: as an engineer yourself and you were in my shoes, would you prefer newer style > consistency (i.e., I should refactor my 50k LOC codebase) or the opposite (i.e., correct the LLM to use my style)?
- bediger4000 11mo ago
  For something that size, I'd prefer consistency, unless the original style is too idiosyncratic, like the fabled "writing Fortran in Perl".
  - chaidhat 11mo ago
    Thank you! Never heard that idiom but caused me to go into a rabbit hole researching Fortran haha

chaidhat 11mo ago

Thank you for the reply and the well thought-out example. This is a good point on garbage in => garbage out as someone else said. Interestingly, the opposite may be true for newer languages: I wrote my frontend in dart over three years in a very C way where getters and setters are just functions. However, after introducing LLMs to my codebase, it started using `get`s and `set`s keywords (which is the newer way). I have a question on personal preference: as an engineer yourself and you were in my shoes, would you prefer newer style > consistency (i.e., I should refactor my 50k LOC codebase) or the opposite (i.e., correct the LLM to use my style)?

bediger4000 11mo ago
For something that size, I'd prefer consistency, unless the original style is too idiosyncratic, like the fabled "writing Fortran in Perl".
- chaidhat 11mo ago
  Thank you! Never heard that idiom but caused me to go into a rabbit hole researching Fortran haha