3 ms·
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
by xgb84j 20d 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 20d 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.