Comment by smaudet

Comment by smaudet 21 hours ago

1 reply

> Where is this template based code generator that can read my code, understand it, and generate a full client including a CLI, that include knowing how to format the data, and implement the required protocols?

I'd argue you are quite a bit beyond "rote" code at that point (with the understanding and protocol bits). But, generating client code is not hard, there are numerous generators around e.g. swagger:

https://swagger.io/ https://swagger.io/tools/swagger-codegen/

In ten years I expect other generators/platforms exist too, that's merely one I'm familiar with.

> you're not on the hook for fixing a specific instance of code, because you can just throw it away and have the AI do it all over. > ... > No, I don't "hope it works" - I have tests.

These are contradictory statements. Every instance of that code you are responsible for, or you wouldn't test it and you wouldn't deign to "need" to throw it away.

> They point to a difference in opportunity cost.

Yes, we are all ultimately concerned with this. However this is not an easy metric to quantify, clearly you feel your OC (Opportunity Cost) because maybe you don't work well with other humans, ok whatever, however you are likely overestimating the supposed savings, and underestimating the lost OC of working with other developers, or simply writing code that doesn't need to be thrown out at all...

tptacek 20 hours ago

I know you two are off on your own thing right now, which is cool, but I just want to say that the point of my comment is solely that the kind of code review involved in LLM output is different and easier than human code review (because of the lack of obligation to salvage the code if it's suspect), and we all seem to have reached a consensus on that point.

I explicitly wasn't trying to persuade anyone that the cost/benefit tradeoff for LLM coding was positive. I obviously believe it is, but reasonable people can disagree.