I'm currently in repos where the context window required is so large that the output is almost always "wrong" for the problem at hand. Quite a few people at my company burn through tokens this way, and it certainly isn't providing value to the company.

▲

AlotOfReading a day ago | parent [-]

As always, improving accessibility for humans makes automation more effective. If the humans need to remember a PhD's worth of source code/documentation to contribute effectively, your codebase stinks.

▲

ivirshup a day ago | parent | next [-]

People at my company have started writing docs specifically for claude. They're quite useful for me too, but kinda disappointing they never wrote these docs for their colleagues.

	▲	dunham a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I recently saw this with the logseq api - the published api was an auto-generated stub. So I tried to grep the source code for the function and found detailed documentation written for claude. So I guess one benefit of all of this is that it's making people actually document things and maybe plan a little bit before implementing.
	▲	staplers a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As someone who has written many docs, it's because 99% won't read it (rightfully so if it's verbose). You can turn that doc into a skill in a repo and Claude will read it everytime it's needed.

▲

bonesss a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree, in the general context of how I code.

The LLM hype train has me reflecting on what a spoiled existence working in a ‘proper’ language provides though…

React devs, JS devs, front-end devs working on large sites and frameworks might be triggering tens of files to be brought into context. What an OCaml dev can bring in through a 5 line union type can look very different in less token-efficient and terse languages.