| ▲ | dakolli 4 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | eloisant 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you truly think LLM are not useful tools for programming, you haven't tried the right tools. |
| |
| ▲ | jeltz 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That is not the same topic. LLMs are useful tools, and that is despite them producing fucking awful code. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I would have agreed with you 6 months ago but things have changed rapidly. | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | People say this every 6 months. I've stopped even paying attention to it, because (A) the code quality remains below the floor, and (B) the people saying it continue to ignore all the other issues with LLM code generation. | | |
| ▲ | Zambyte 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Up until the last couple of months, I have treated LLMs as a supercharged stackoverflow. I would ask it questions on how to do something in a general sense, and then adapt the answer to my use case. Now, my entire programming flow does not even include an editor. The tools I use are: pi.dev to write and implement openspec specifications, herdr to manage many pi instances, and ollama to run qwen 3.8 27b on my single 7900 XTX. Writing good specifications is the key detail here. I will often iterate on a spec for hours until I am happy with it all of the details. Once I am happy with the spec, I can be quite confident that when I tell pi to apply the spec, the changes that I want will be done, and done how I want them, when I come back to check when it reports itself as done. The landscale is fundamentally different from what it was. Feel free to ignore it, but you can absolutely generate high quality code if you know what you're doing. | | |
| ▲ | panny 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >ollama to run qwen 3.8 27b Installed this recently to try it out. >pi.dev to write and implement openspec specifications, herdr to manage many pi instances Thanks for mentioning the tools you're using successfully. It seems like most people using LLMs are keen to keep their cards close to their chest. | | |
| ▲ | Zambyte 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No problem. I think it's less of people withholding information to have an advantage, and more people still not having settled on a workflow they like. Herdr is the most recent addition in my workflow as of only a few days ago, but it directly solves problems I have been having (juggling tons of terminals, even with my tiling wm has been a little unwieldy). The rest I've pretty much settled into for a while now. | | |
| ▲ | Zambyte 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The other tool I wanted to throw out there is voxtype (plus wtype). I've been looking for a good, global, local dictation solution for wayland for a while now, and finally landed on this one. It's great for rambling details that pi+qwen can then convert into concrete openspec specifications. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kuboble 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | N=1 and might be a raw skill issue on my end. But I all but stopped writing code 13 months ago. At the beginning the code was often bad. In the last 6 months alone I had received more praise from my customers for excellent work than ever before. |
| |
| ▲ | jeltz 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure what I can say but the LLMs simply do not write good code without tons of handholding. As a C developer most LLMed patches I have seen the last couple of months have been awful and the few good ones I know from the author themselves that they did a ton of iteration and/or manual cleanup. Maybe they are less bad at writing other languages. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 4 days ago | parent [-] | | At least what I have seen in Ruby and Typescript, they are excellent at doing what you asked for. But if what you asked for is stupid they will happily make it happen. They don’t make normal mistakes like typos and they aren’t lazy so things like tests and checking error cases is usually done. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | roblabla 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I tried a lot of tools. Claude code, deepseek with kilocode and OMP, codex... I still use claude quite a bit. But frankly, all of them produce some absolutely godawful code. Review load went way up with AI, and it's not just the volume that caused it, but also the quality. It's extremely verbose, hard to read, often repeats code instead of factoring it into reusable components. And yes, sometimes it's also buggy. Except now, you have to debug a problem that's in code you didn't write yourself, and is awful to read. LLM is incredibly valuable for debugging complex problems, codebase exploration, and planning large changes. But the writing code part itself, I find, LLMs are just not very good at it yet. | | |
| ▲ | user43928 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't have to debug anything. Vaguely telling the agent what the issue is and what behavior I expect solves the issue with a fraction of the effort. Some claim that the tech debt only keeps increasing and that the result will be unmaintainable. This is not my experience, and I don't think it is theirs either. These claims are often entirely speculative. | | |
| ▲ | RHSeeger 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I, and I think most experienced developers, can recognize the type of code that incurs a maintenance cost down the line; that will make adding new code take longer. And AI writes such code "relatively" frequently. I love having the AI to write code, but I find it extremely important to review it - to make sure that it's correct, understandable, and not going to be a problem later. | | |
| ▲ | user43928 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I find it unnecessary for most non-critical code, such as client applications. I doubt that any supposed future extra effort for the AI to add new code is remotely comparable to the upfront effort of you reviewing the code manually. I know that this is the case today for native mobile apps, and I speak from hundreds of hours of experience over the last four months on such a project where I stopped reviewing the code. We are already here today, and this balance is only going to further shift to the point where it is obvious that the hands-on approach is no longer competitive. | | |
| ▲ | RHSeeger 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Everything about what you're said strikes me as sounding like "I don't bother wearing a seatbelt, because my experience is that I don't get in accidents" .. and also "I don't write automated tests, because I already hand tested my code and it works". And neither one of those statements is very convincing to me. | | |
| ▲ | user43928 4 days ago | parent [-] | | And what you said strikes me as speculation not based on actual experience in using AI in this way, with a healthy dose of condescension added. Anyway, I think we shared our viewpoints, and neither of us is going to change their mind until either my project fails spectacularly, or you change your approach in the future to use AI more autonomously. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | roblabla 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've had bugs the agents can't fix or figure out. Sometimes those involve third-party, proprietary, broken code (read: Windows APIs). Sometimes they just involve complex deployment situation on the client code (I work on desktop apps) where the agent can't figure out what's wrong/makes wrong assumptions/goes nowhere. Sometimes the agent is just very dumb and tunnels vision on the wrong fix. FWIW, I've also had bugs the agent fixed that I probably never would've figured out without LLMs - LLMs are definitely useful! But I need to keep understanding how the code works so I can take over the reigns when the LLM fails. |
| |
| ▲ | api 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ve had some luck prompting them to be concise, both in writing and in code, and with code doing an approach where they get it working, write tons of tests, and then refactor for conciseness and readability. All the tests prevent regressions doing this. Without such prompting and a conciseness and clarity pass you get a slop grenade. They overall work better with tests, and Rust is a great language for them. Overall they do better with lots of walls and alarms that go off if they mess up. I don’t need nearly as much of this, can mentally simulate it, which is a good “are we superintelligence yet” reality check. Still not even as good as my wet meat brain. But impressive given what was possible even two years ago! The result is still not as clean as a good programmer but it’s better than the slop grenade you get first pass. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | xandrius 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm pretty sure you used chat gpt when it came out and literally stopped looking then. GPT 5.6 sol and Astra can now one shot incredible stuff. |
|
| ▲ | LatencyKills 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I spent 22 years as an engineer split between MS and Apple. SOTA LLMs can write code just as good as most human engineers. I expect to see the "LLMs are just next token predictors!" crap on Reddit... not HN. |
| |
| ▲ | jeltz 4 days ago | parent [-] | | LLMs produce pretty crappy code but they are very useful tools for protyping, code search and finding bugs. Maybe LLMs in the future will be able to write good code but they are very far from that right now. | | |
| ▲ | basilikum 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Perhaps it would be useful if both of you could provide examples of supposedly good and bad code – the latter being the result of a genuine effort to produce good code with state of the art models. Just asserting that LLM code is good or bad ends in a yes - no - yes - no back and forth circle immediately. | | |
| ▲ | LatencyKills 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I just used an LLM (along with my decades of operating system development experience) to create a macOS tool [0] that lets me see through windows, instead of having to continually command+tab between windows. The solution required reverse engineering and internals knowledge that most human engineers don't even have. The question is no longer "Can an LLM write code?". It can. The problem is that certain humans refuse to put in the effort required to properly utilize these tools. [0] https://imgur.com/a/2CUEjmA | | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | LLMs have been good at knowing what's in the manual from v1.0. Super good at that. Pretty good translators. Pretty good at doing things that have been done a million times before, like your CRUD app. Super mediocre at everything else. LLMs as things that know what's in the manual are AAA+. Extremely helpful. Very good at making a rough draft of something filled with a lot of stupid mistakes and no new abstractions. That's what your transparent window thing is. Something that you could never ship, is probably too big and doing senseless things for no intelligible reason, and definitely has bizarre bugs. | | |
| ▲ | LatencyKills 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What in the world are you talking about? I was literally an senior engineer on the Windows Kernel team, the Visual Studio team, and the Xcode team at Apple. This application, named Seymore, is being evaluated for purchase by several tech companies. (It helps having good industry contacts) There was a ton of interesting engineering required to make this work at 60 fps+ without resorting to hacks or using private APIs. Most macOS engineers wouldn't even know where to start. I've shipped code that is used by billions of people and all you just did was spew a bunch of bullshit. As someone who has built their own LLM from scratch, I have an extremely good idea of what they can and can't do. If you don't know how to use these tools, you'll end up with crap. If you DO know how to use them, they are incredibly useful. | | |
| ▲ | tuesdaynight 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't agree with using your credentials to show your code quality, but I don't doubt you have better standards than most developers. That said, stop trying to change their minds. Antirez was a good at programming until he started coding using AI only. The same will be said about Carmack and Linus. What they are saying is increasingly difficult to defend, but they will do it anyways. I see the same arguments at my job, and I just gave up arguing against | | |
| ▲ | LatencyKills 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I mention my background because it is relevant context: I spent nearly 30 years building software used by billions of people. If you use Windows or macOS, you have likely used code I helped ship. I’m not going to apologize for that experience or pretend it does not inform my judgment. Some engineering problems (such as designing a performant thread-quantum algorithm) require depth accumulated over years of working on real systems at scale. That is not elitism; it is simply how specialized expertise works. Experience is unevenly distributed, and that matters when evaluating technical claims. When I say I trust LLM generated code, I mean that in a qualified, engineering sense. I do not treat an LLM as a slot machine: enter a prompt, paste the output, and hope. I use a deliberate workflow for decomposition, prompting, review, testing, validation, and integration. Developing that workflow took substantial time and experimentation. The useful question is not “Can an LLM write code without oversight?” It obviously cannot, at least not reliably for nontrivial work. The question is whether an experienced engineer can build a process that makes LLM output trustworthy enough for particular classes of work. In my experience, the answer is yes. But the process, judgment, and willingness to do the work are the hard parts. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | basilikum 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We can't judge code quality without having the code. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This kind of shaming is getting tired. At the end of the day, the people claiming their code quality is better without ai, while everyone else has low standards, aren’t providing any evidence of their supposed superiority. |
| |
| ▲ | rossy 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I think the burden of proof is on the new technology. It's been almost a year since the supposed death of manual coding, depending on how you count, but I haven't seen the efficiency benefits of AI trickle down to the programs I'm an end-user of. I _have_ seen the bugs, however (rsync 3.4.3 for example.) | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Depends what you mean by end-user. Power users of AI aren't using these things to build applications for users, they're using them to do all the things they couldn't do as mere mortal programmers. Like the other poster detailing how they got a game running in web assembly. That's not for end-users, and even if it was they wouldn't be able to look at that and say "Wow, this is an example of AI benefitting me as an end-user" they'd just say "Wow cool, a game". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | psychoslave 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What is fkn? |
| |