| ▲ | fnoef 4 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Very egocentric piece. Almost reads as “I’m so cool, I did so many cool things, and most things other people did is way worse than even the slop that my LLM prompting skills are capable to produce”. Also “ You have to understand how things work, what is the best design, how to reach a certain level of performance.” - how does OP propose to understand how things work or what is the best design if you don’t actually go and build things or read the code? I hope the answer is not “reading mythical man month” or “watching YouTube video tutorials”. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | nimonian 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is pretty unfair. If the author didn't establish some context there would be someone else here saying "Check out this dilettante telling me what to think." I have a degree in mathematics followed by twenty years in software development (pillory me, if you like). My conclusions after 6 months of using LLMs every day are remarkably similar to the author's. I increasingly think in shapes, architectures, data structures and ideas; less and less in lines of code. And I fully understand his point that, once the architecture of an idea is settled, reading LLM code does not feel worse than reading human generated code. Especially if you have a strong style and conventions guide. The idea is the hard part, and it's the right place to focus your effort. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||