4 ms·

>Claude was consistently doing database operations in a for loop, where it could use batch operations. >The code in the end is better than a lot of the code I'

>Claude was consistently doing database operations in a for loop, where it could use batch operations. >The code in the end is better than a lot of the code I've seen humans write. It's a little amusing to see those two sentences written back to back with no hint of irony to be frank. By the way, why didn't the "Multiple agents going over the same problem catch a surprising amount of dumb stuff that would otherwise slip through" catch it? Who knows how many skills you would have to have added if you actually reviewed the 400k codebase...But don't worry that's not what I am advocating. I myself would also latch onto any excuse that allows me to avoid the realization that I have to review 400k (or half that) lines of code, primary one being that I will always have a desperate paying customer that will always be grateful for anything I give them. Which comes to your most valid advice which has nothing to do with AI (now that many devs have access to it): > Work for business people who want fast results This is what well oiled outsourve shops used to do and I must say it is no easy feat to be able to line up a constant stream of desperate businness people out of thin air, especially for your regular "I just want to code" engineer. My guess is you're in the honeymoon phase with most of these people. The outsource shops that survived would fire the client that became more demanding and less grateful and move onto more freshly desperate client pastures. It is true that sales, self-promotion, and marketing are more important than ever now... >Set up excellent testing. Is this the part that you hand code or constantly review yourself? I guess not, since you would have explicitly mentioned something that important. I would caution you not to be surprised when no one believes you have excellent testing when you've unleashed multiple LLMs on it and are not reviewing code anymore.

xgb84j 22d ago
I do not believe you read my comment in good conscience. >>Claude was consistently doing database operations in a for loop, where it could use batch operations. >>The code in the end is better than a lot of the code I've seen humans write. >It's a little amusing to see those two sentences written back to back with no hint of irony to be frank. There is no irony because I have seen humans do the same thing. The difference is that the human was paid 50x more. I do not understand your arguments around outsource shops. I get clients. They want something. I deliver. There is not a lot of complexity to this. I am not a world start programmer that has 50 clients to choose from. >>Set up excellent testing. >Is this the part that you hand code or constantly review yourself? I guess not, since you would have explicitly mentioned something that important. I would caution you not to be surprised when no one believes you have excellent testing when you've unleashed multiple LLMs on it and are not reviewing code anymore. I set up excellent testing the same way a CTO would set up excellent testing: I give clear guidelines on the architecture I want to see on the project. I then review key parts and samples of it and give feedback. When it looks good I mark it as done and move on. Any bugs or defects always result in additional test coverage. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion about this, but I do not appreciate your sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, condescending tone. It makes people not wanting to communicate with you.
- sillyfluke 21d ago
  > There is no irony because I have seen humans do the same thing. Your original comment started with the sentence: > I am currently writing a lot of code that I am not reviewing anymore. Then you give an example of catching a bad pattern the LLMs used when you actually reviewed the code, after you mentioned you had multiple agents set up to catch each others mistakes. That is the irony. You're mentioning that LLMs engage in basic bad coding patterns that are not caught by multiple agents, hence underlining the importance of human review. > There is no irony because I have seen humans do the same thing. Yes, but you were reviewing the humans. You're not reviewing the LLMs. > I set up excellent testing the same way a CTO would set up excellent testing. Knowing LLMs can make basic coding pattern mistakes (as you mention) but still unleashing them on your tests without routine human review that makes sure that test suites have not been negatively affected after each iteration seems like the polar opposite of consistantly maintaining excellent testing throughout the software development process.

xgb84j 22d ago

I do not believe you read my comment in good conscience. >>Claude was consistently doing database operations in a for loop, where it could use batch operations. >>The code in the end is better than a lot of the code I've seen humans write. >It's a little amusing to see those two sentences written back to back with no hint of irony to be frank. There is no irony because I have seen humans do the same thing. The difference is that the human was paid 50x more. I do not understand your arguments around outsource shops. I get clients. They want something. I deliver. There is not a lot of complexity to this. I am not a world start programmer that has 50 clients to choose from. >>Set up excellent testing. >Is this the part that you hand code or constantly review yourself? I guess not, since you would have explicitly mentioned something that important. I would caution you not to be surprised when no one believes you have excellent testing when you've unleashed multiple LLMs on it and are not reviewing code anymore. I set up excellent testing the same way a CTO would set up excellent testing: I give clear guidelines on the architecture I want to see on the project. I then review key parts and samples of it and give feedback. When it looks good I mark it as done and move on. Any bugs or defects always result in additional test coverage. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion about this, but I do not appreciate your sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, condescending tone. It makes people not wanting to communicate with you.

sillyfluke 21d ago
> There is no irony because I have seen humans do the same thing. Your original comment started with the sentence: > I am currently writing a lot of code that I am not reviewing anymore. Then you give an example of catching a bad pattern the LLMs used when you actually reviewed the code, after you mentioned you had multiple agents set up to catch each others mistakes. That is the irony. You're mentioning that LLMs engage in basic bad coding patterns that are not caught by multiple agents, hence underlining the importance of human review. > There is no irony because I have seen humans do the same thing. Yes, but you were reviewing the humans. You're not reviewing the LLMs. > I set up excellent testing the same way a CTO would set up excellent testing. Knowing LLMs can make basic coding pattern mistakes (as you mention) but still unleashing them on your tests without routine human review that makes sure that test suites have not been negatively affected after each iteration seems like the polar opposite of consistantly maintaining excellent testing throughout the software development process.