For better or worse, a lot of people seem to disagree with this, and believe that humans reading code is only necessary at the margins, similarly to debugging compiler outputs. Personally I don't believe we're there yet (and may not get there for some time) but this is where comments like GP's come from: human legibility is a secondary or tertiary concern and it's fine to give it up if the code meets its requirements and can be maintained effectively by LLMs.

▲

threetonesun 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I rarely see LLMs generate code that is less readable than the rest of the codebase it's been created for. I've seen humans who are short on time or economic incentive produce some truly unreadable code.

Of more concern to me is that when it's unleashed on the ephemera of coding (Jira tickets, bug reports, update logs) it generates so much noise you need another AI to summarize it for you.

	▲	gordonhart 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The main coding agent failure modes I've seen: - Proliferation of utils/helpers when there are already ones defined in the codebase. Particularly a problem for larger codebases - Tests with bad mocks and bail-outs due to missing things in the agent's runtime environment ("I see that X isn't available, let me just stub around that...") - Overly defensive off-happy-path handling, returning null or the semantic "empty" response when the correct behavior is to throw an exception that will be properly handled somewhere up the call chain - Locally optimal design choices with very little "thought" given to ownership or separation of concerns All of these can pretty quickly turn into a maintainability problem if you aren't keeping a close eye on things. But broadly I agree that line-per-line frontier LLM code is generally better than what humans write and miles better than what a stressed-out human developer with a short deadline usually produces.

▲

hinkley 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And Sturgeon tells us 90% of people are wrong, so what can you do.