|
| ▲ | i_cannot_hack 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Reviewing the correctness of code is a lot harder than writing correct code, in my experience. Especially when the code given looks correct on an initial glance, and leads you into faulty assumptions you would not have made otherwise. I'm not claiming AI-written and human-reviewed code is necessarily bad, just that the claim that reviewing code is equivalent to writing it yourself does not match my experience at all. |
| |
| ▲ | tempest_ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Plus if you look at the commit cadence there is a lot of commits like 5-10 minutes a part in places that add new functionality (which I realize doesn't mean they were "written" in that time) I find people do argue a lot about "if it is reviewed it is the same" which might be easy when you start but I think the allure of just glancing going "it makes sense" and hammering on is super high and hard to resist. We are still early into the use of these tools so perhaps best practices will need to be adjusted with these tools in mind. At the moment it seems to be a bit of a crap shoot to me. |
|
|
| ▲ | IshKebab 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The difference is we can't tell if you reviewed the code. |
|
| ▲ | throawayonthe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| i mean idk that's sorta like asking what's the difference of having tests if you review the code getting merged |
