3 ms·
> Now, no one does. I got a chuckle over this, but in my experience working on legacy systems, this is the case already. Using AI to translate/explain the cod
by someone654 2mo ago
> Now, no one does.
I got a chuckle over this, but in my experience working on legacy systems, this is the case already. Using AI to translate/explain the code brings extra understanding.
- Zenst 2mo agoWhilst true, it's not without its gotchas, and I saw a video the other day that elegantly highlights this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6MAZW-joCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6MAZW-joCo. A false sense of confidence is bad; one that is offloaded onto somebody else is another.
- m4rtink 2mo agoCan it really explain the code if the information is not there anymore ? It was in a binder that got shredded 40 years ago by accident. More like it will hallucinate some explanation & cause even more confusion.
- free_bip 2mo agoIf what you want is the "Why", you're right it probably won't get it right. It'll just give you baseless speculation. But if what you want is the "What" or the "How", I think it can be useful.
- sharts 2mo agoThe code is the information. If you need binders of info then it wasn’t codified
- pixel_popping 2mo agoYes, it would take a long time for humans to remake a documentation from the codebase itself, but AI could do that much quicker and with close to perfect accuracy, Code is superior to documentation as it's the direct intended behavior (including bugs), in a sense, we won't even need documentation in the future, except maybe to lower AI costs.