4 ms·
> This has completely replaced human code review for anything that isn't functional correctness Isn’t functional correctness pretty much the only thing that ma
by smallpipe 7mo ago
> This has completely replaced human code review for anything that isn't functional correctness
Isn’t functional correctness pretty much the only thing that matters though?
- grey-area 7mo agoWell no, style is important too for humans when they read a codebase, so the LLMs the parent is running clearly have some value for them. They're not claiming LLMs solved every problem, just that they made life easier by taking care of busywork that humans would otherwise be doing. I think personally this is quite a good use for them - offering suggestions on PRs say, as long as humans still review them as well.
- 1718627440 7mo agoBut isn't style already achievable by running e.g. GNU indent?
- jjmarr 7mo agoSome examples of complex transformations linters can't catch: * Function names must start with a verb. * Use standard algorithms instead of for loops. * Refactor your code to use IIFEs to make variables constexpr. The verb one is the best example. Since we work adjacent to hardware, people like creating functions on structs representing register state called "REGISTER_XYZ_FIELD_BIT_1()" and you can't tell if this gets the value of the first field bit or sets something called field bit to 1. If you rename it to `getRegisterXyzFieldBit1()` or `setRegisterXyzFieldBitTo1()` at least it becomes clear what they're doing.