> Instead, the right train of thought is: "what would perfect code look like?" and then meticulously describe to the LLM what "perfect" is to shape every line that gets generated.

I don't think there's perfect code.

Code is automation - it automates human effort and humans themselves have error, hence not perfect.

So as long as code meets or exceeds the human output, it's "good enough" and meets expectations. That's what a typical customer cares about.

A customer will happily choose a tent made of tarp and plastic sticks that's available at their budget, right now when it's raining outside, over an architectural marvel that will be available sometime in the future at some unknown pricepoint.

Put another way, I don't think if you built CharlieAI CharlieGPT today, where the only differentiating factor over ChatGPT was that CharlieGPT was written using perfect code, you would have any meaningful edge.

I am yet to see any evidence where everything else being equal, one company had an edge over another simply due to superior code.

Infact, I have overwhelming evidence of companies that had better code succumb and vanish against companies that had very little, if any code, because those dollars were instead invested in better customer discovery, segmentation and analytics ("what should we build?", "if we did one thing that would give our customers an unfair advantage, what would be that thing?")

Software history is full of perfect OS, editors, frameworks, protocols that is lost over time because a provably inferior option won marketshare.

You are using a software controlled SMPS to power your device right now. You have 0 idea what the quality of that code is. All you care about is whether that SMPS drains your battery prematurely and heats up your device unnecessarily. It's extremely unlikely that such an efficient, low overhead control system was written using well abstracted modules. It's more likely that control system is full of gotos and repeated violations of DRY that would make a perfectionist shudder and cry.

▲ CharlieDigital 3 hours ago | parent [-]

    > I don't think there's perfect code

Note I used "perfect" in my text. In this context, meaning it passes human PR reviews following our standard guidelines with minimal feedback/correction required.

    > So as long as code meets or exceeds the human output, it's "good enough" and meets expectations. That's what a typical customer cares about.

Why settle for this when "perfect" is "free"? I understand this dichotomy when writing "perfect" code requires more expensive, more experienced human resources or more time so you settle for "good enough"; but this is no longer the case, is it? The cost of "perfect" is only perhaps a few fractions of a cent higher than shitty.

You only need to accurately describe what "perfect" is to the LLM instead of allowing it to regress to the mean of its training set. There really is no cost difference between writing shitty code and "perfect" code now; its just a matter of how good you are at describing "perfect" to the LLM.

For example, we very specifically want our agents to write code using C# tuple return types for private methods that return more than 1 value instead of creating a class. The tuple return type is a stack allocated value type and has a default deconstructor. We also always want to use named tuple fields every time because it removes ambiguity for humans and increases efficiency for agents when re-reading the code.

We want the code to make use of pattern matching and switch expressions (not `switch-case`) because they help enforce exhaustive checks at compile time and make the code more terse.

If we simply tell the agent these rules ahead of time, we get "perfect", consistent code each time. Being able to do so requires "taste" and understanding why writing code one way or using a specific language construct or a specific design pattern is the "right" way.

▲ subhobroto 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> There really is no cost difference between writing shitty code and "perfect" code now; its just a matter of how good you are at describing "perfect" to the LLM.

The consequent is at odds with the antecedent. It's a performative contradiction (if the output were truly "free", the skill of the operator would be a zero-value variable - yet, by requiring skill, you acknowledge a cost) as I prove below

> The cost of "perfect" is only perhaps a few fractions of a cent higher than shitty.

Is your cost model accounting for the cost of specification, of review and additional cycles required if review fails or the specification itself needs to be adjusted?

> If we simply tell the agent these rules ahead of time, we get "perfect", consistent code each time

No, in the simplest case, your cost of perfection is simply moving up the chain of abstraction from implementation (coding) to design and specification. In reality it also splits and moves a part of that cost downstream to verification.

This isn't some special, magical insight I have, I'm reiterating Tesler's Law right back to you.

I also encourage you to read software history - for decades it has been trivial to split out perfectly working CRUD from an ER and UML diagram, no LLM necessary. The insight is understanding why we continue to hire cheap human labor to spit out CRUD instead of using those tools.

The cost of software is, and always has been, in the figuring out the intent, not the generation of syntax.

I wish pg was more active on HN - I expect this is one of the reasons why he wanted founders to have and share the painpoints of their (potential) customers. Figuring out the intent is expensive. Mistake the intent and the best case scenario is a pivot.

	▲	CharlieDigital an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		`> I wish pg was more active on HN - I expect this is one of the reasons why he wanted founders to have and share the painpoints of their (potential) customers. Figuring out the intent is expensive. Mistake the intent and the best case scenario is a pivot.` Your mistake is that you think the point is that only engineers participate in the production of code. In fact, the point is that the product team and the people closest to the customer can generate the code. And for that reason, the goal is to produce a framework on top of which "perfect" code can be produced with relative ease and consistency regardless of whether the user is part of engineering or product. `> Is your cost model accounting for the cost of specification` This is the same cost no matter what. The LLM does not generate code on its own; some operator must provide some instruction and specification regardless so you might as well give it good ones. But here, I would point out that there is a high level of broader general instructions that incur a one-time cost of specification ("Always write this code this way").
	▲	aaztehcy 40 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]