> I bet you could replace your slop pile with a tenth of the lines of clean code, and chances are it'd be less work than you think.

Actually, no. When LLMs produce good, working code, it also tends to be efficient (in terms of lines, etc).

May vary with language and domain, though.

▲

stavros 4 days ago | parent [-]

Eh, when is that, though? I'm always worrying about the bugs that I haven't noticed if I don't review the changes. The other day, I gave it a four-step algorithm to implement, and it skipped three of the steps because it didn't think they were necessary (they were).

▲

BeetleB 4 days ago | parent [-]

Hmm...

It may be the size of the changes you're asking for. I tend to micromanage it. I don't know your algorithm, but if it's complex enough, I may have done 4 separate prompts - one for each step.

▲

foobarbecue 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't it easier to just write the code???

▲

BeetleB 4 days ago | parent [-]

Depends on the algorithm. When you've been coding for a few decades, you really, really don't want to write yet another trivial algorithm you've written multiple tens of times in your life. There's no joy in it.

Let the LLM do the boring stuff, and focus on writing the fun stuff.

Also, setting up logging in Python is never fun.

▲

foobarbecue 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Right-- it's only really capable of trivial code and boilerplate, which I usually just copy from one of my older programs, examples in docs, or a highly-ranked recent SO answer. Saves me from having to converse with an expensive chatbot, and I don't have to worry about random hallucinations.

If it's a new, non-trivial algorithm, I enjoy writing it.

▲

BeetleB 3 days ago | parent [-]

For me, it's a lot easier getting the LLM to do it than browsing through multiple SO answers, or even finding some old code of mine.

Oh, and the chatbot is cheap. I pay for API usage. On average I'm paying less than $5 per month.

> and I don't have to worry about random hallucinations.

For boilerplate code, I don't think I've ever had to fix anything. It's always worked the first time. If it didn't, my prompt was at fault.

	▲	Mallowram 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The reason it is code and not glyphs that summarize boilerplated function is to keep the chance for innovation open. Once the code becomes automated to this scale, it indicates the language is dying. AI is simply automated undertaking, not advancement. Look big picture, not small-minded expediency.

▲

a5c11 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Also, setting up logging in Python is never fun.

import logging

	▲	BeetleB 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not fun at all. Configuring it to produce useful stuff (e.g. timestamps, autologging exceptions, etc). Very boilerplate and tedious.

▲

stavros 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It was really simple, just traversing a list up and down twice. It just didn't see the reason why, so it skipped it all (the reason was to prevent race conditions).