One thing to think about is many software devs have a very hard time with code they didn't write. I've seen many devs do a lot of work to change code to something equivalent (even with respect to performance and readability) only because it's not the way they would have done it. I could see people having a hard time using what the LLM produced without having to "fix it up" and basically re-write everything.

▲

jama211 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah sometimes I feel like a unicorn because I don’t really care about code at all, so long as it conforms to decent standards and does what it needs to do. I honestly believe engineers often overestimate the importance of elegance in code too, to the point of not realising the slow down of a project due to overly perfect code is genuinely not worth it.

▲

parpfish 3 days ago | parent [-]

i dont care if the code is elegant, i care that the code is consistent.

do the same thing in the same way each time and it lets you chunk it up and skim it much easier. if there are little differences each time, you have to keep asking yourself "is it done differently here for a particular reason?"

▲

vanviegen 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly! And besides that, new code being consistent with its surrounding code used to be a sign of careful craftsmanship (as opposed to spaghetti-against-the-wall style coding), giving me some confidence that the programmer may have considered at least the most important nasty edge cases. LLMs have rendered that signal mostly useless, of course.

	▲	jama211 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ehh, in my experience if you are using an LLM in context they are better these days at conforming to the code style around it, especially if you put it in your rules that you wish it to.

▲

jama211 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolutely fair, and a great method.