3 ms·
No one really. Code is for humans to read and for machines to compile and execute. Llms are enabling people to just write the code and not have anyone read it.
by righthand 8mo ago
No one really. Code is for humans to read and for machines to compile and execute. Llms are enabling people to just write the code and not have anyone read it. It’s solving a problem that didn’t really exist (we already had code generators before llms).
It’s such an intoxicating copyright-abuse slot machine that a buddy who is building an ocaml+htmx tree editor told me “I always get stuck and end up going to the llm to generate code. Usually when I get to the html part.” I asked if he used a debugger before that, he said “that’s a good idea”.
- galbar 8mo agoThis is something I've been wondering about... If boilerplate was such a big issue, we should have worked on improving code generation. In fact, many tools and frameworks exist that did this already: - rails has fantastic code generation for CRUD use cases - intelliJ IDEs have been able to do many types of refactors and class generation that included some of the boilerplate I haven't reached a conclusion on this train of thought yet, though.
- righthand 8mo agoPre-llm corpos my thoughts were that we should be training juniors on code generators. Instead we’re somewhere between rtfm or dont.
- hrmtst93837 8mo ago[flagged]
- righthand 8mo agoI stopped worrying about that and just write code and do the debugging. Why pay for speed when the cruising lane is perfectly acceptable?