| Debugging, sanity checking, testing, etc. are the best uses of LLMs. Much better than writing code. Developers should write their own code and use LLMs to design and verify. Better, faster architecture and planning, pre-cleaned PRs and no skill atrophy or loss of understanding on the part of the developer. |
| |
| ▲ | michaelchisari 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | To clarify, AI should not do the design itself. You develop the design in conversation with AI. I come in knowing what I need to build and at least one idea or more of how it should be done. I present the problem, constraints, potential solutions, and ask for criticisms and alternatives. I can keep it as broad as possible or I can get more granular like struct layouts, api endpoints, etc. I go back and forth until there's an approach I prefer and then I code that approach. | it can code pretty well given a very tight and limited scope. It's wildly better at tight and limited scope than large scale changes but even then I would rather code it myself. | | |
| ▲ | radarsat1 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's wildly better at tight and limited scope than large scale changes but even then I would rather code it myself. One thing I would like to see is the use of LLMs for smarter semi-manual editing. While programming I often need to make very similar changes in several places. If the instances are similar enough I can get away with recording a one-off keyboard macro to repeat, but if there are differences that are too difficult to handle this way I end up needing to do a lot of manual editing. It would be nice to see LLMs tightly integrated into the editor so I can do a simple "place the cursor at things like this" based on an example or two. I'm sure more ideas for using LLMs more quickly perform semantic changes you intended are possible, instead of just prompting for a big diff. I feel there's a lot more innovation possible in this direction, where you're still "coding it yourself" but just faster. | | |
| ▲ | strange_quark 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've had a similar thought. A super refactor feature would be amazing, but wouldn't fit into the current zeitgeist of agent everything. Hopefully as the hype starts to die down and prices go up, we'll get some of these smaller, more targeted features. | | |
| ▲ | empthought an hour ago | parent [-] | | You don't need a special feature for this. Just tell the coding assistant what to do. |
| |
| ▲ | empthought an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should try using the existing agents for your semi-manual editing. You don't need editor support. The coding agent can find "things like this" faster than you can. Just tell it what to look for and how to change it. What I did was make one commit by hand (involving multiple files), and then told Codex (last year's Codex!) to make the equivalent changes to other instances in the code base. |
| |
| ▲ | skydhash 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I come in knowing what I need to build and at least one idea or more of how it should be done. I present the problem, constraints, potential solutions, and ask for criticisms and alternatives Never understood that argument. Because there’s two steps in design. Finding a good solution (discussing prior art, tradeoffs,…) and then nailing the technical side of that solution (data structures, formula,…). Is it the former, the latter or both? |
|
|
