5 ms·
They also produce crap once you leave the realm of basic CRUD web apps... Try using it with Microsofts Business Central bullshit, does not work well.
by zwnow 11mo ago
They also produce crap once you leave the realm of basic CRUD web apps... Try using it with Microsofts Business Central bullshit, does not work well.
- arthurfirst 11mo agoI have worked with a lot of code generation systems. LLMs strike me as mainly useful in the same way. I can get most of the boilerplate and tedium done with LLM tools. Then for core logic esp learning or meta-programming patterns etc. I need to jump in. Breaking tasks down to bite size, and writing detailed architecture and planning docs for the LLM to work from, is critical to managing increasing complexity and staying within context windows. Also critical is ruthlessly throwing away things that do not fit the vision and not being afraid to throw whole days away (not too often tho!) For ref I have built stuff that goes way beyond CRUD app with these tools in 1/10th of the time it previously took me or less -- the key though is I already knew how to do and how to validate LLM outputs. I knew exactly what I wanted a priori. Code generation technically always 'replaced' junior devs and has been around for ages, the results of the generation are just a lot better now., whereas in the past it was mixed bag of benefits/hassles doing code generation regularly, now it works much better and the cost is much less. I started my career as a developer and the main reasons I became a solutions systems guy were money and that I hated the tedium boilerplate phase of all software development projects over a certain scale. I never stoped coding because I love it -- just not for large enterprise soul destroying software projects.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- dboreham 11mo agoQuick note that this has not been my experience. LLMs have been very useful with codebases as far from crud web apps as you can get.
- shermantanktop 11mo agoThis is consistent pattern. Two engineers use LLM-based coding tools; one comes away with nothing but frustration, the other one gets useful results. They trade anecdotes and wonder what the other is doing that is so different. Maybe the other person is incompetent? Maybe they chose a different tool? Maybe their codebase is very different?
- SoftTalker 11mo agoI would imagine it has a lot to do with the programming language and other technologies in the project. The LLMs have tons of training data on JS and React. They probably have relatively little on Erlang.
- neilv 11mo agoIt's like when your frat house has a filing cabinet full of past years' essays. Protestant Reformation? Done, 7 years ago, different professor. Your brothers are pleased to liberate you for Saturday's house party. Barter Economy in Soviet Breakaway Republics? Sorry, bro. But we have a Red Square McDonald's feasibility study; you can change the names?
- Blackarea 11mo agoMass of learning material doesn't equal quality though. The amount of poor react code out there is not to underestimate. I feel like llm generated gleam code was way cleaner (after some agentic loops due to syntactic misunderstanding) than ts/react where it's so biased to produce overly verbose slob.
- stickfigure 11mo agoEven if you're using JS/React, the level of sophistication of the UI seems to matter a lot. "Put this data on a web page" is easy. Complex application-like interactions seem to be more challenging. It's faster/easier to do the work by hand than it is to wait for the LLM, then correct it. But if you aren't already an expert, you probably aren't looking for complex interaction models. "Put this data on a web page" is often just fine.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- DANmode 11mo agoHow old is said bullshit? No train, no gain.
- bluedel 11mo agoEverything that we know and love is reducible to a basic CRUD web app