4 ms·
> This is misguided. Maintenance of LLM code has a far greater cost than generating it. In corporate reality they don't care. They have their product, requirem
by doublerabbit 7mo ago
> This is misguided. Maintenance of LLM code has a far greater cost than generating it.
In corporate reality they don't care. They have their product, requirement. As it starts to rot it's easier to rebuild than to maintain.
If you can ask for an LLM with a skeleton crew team now they can do it all again in five years time with the next level of LLMs.
- indymike 7mo agoYes, it is precisely misguided, and will be in five years, too. Software lasts way longer than people think it does.
- vova_hn2 7mo ago> Software lasts way longer than people think it does. It was true, but I'm not sure if it's still true in the age of LLMs. Maybe we are moving into the era of disposable software.
- sublinear 7mo agoThe longevity of code depends at least on whether it's a product or a service. Services are what the majority of devs already work on and maintain. There's almost no incentive for anyone to use LLMs for that outside of startups. They do indeed last a long time because the code is as fundamental to the recurring revenue of the business as their legal or accounting or marketing. Devs make changes according to the evolving needs of the business, and "productivity" isn't as much of a priority as accuracy and reliability. The implementation details are very relevant to the business, especially for B2B services that need to meet compliance requirements. Products, however, have always been disposable code written by people being thrown into a meat grinder. I don't think LLM-generated code is better, but it's probably not that much worse either.