| ▲ | compiler-devel 2 hours ago |
| In the age of LLMs I would expect that legacy code bet carried indefinitely. The LLMs will have it indefinitely in their training data, and with code "cheap" to produce now, what are the good reasons for dropping legacy code? |
|
| ▲ | anonymous908213 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The obvious answer is that LLMs are not quite the machine gods they're marketed as, innit. |
| |
| ▲ | compiler-devel an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand what you're saying. | | |
| ▲ | anonymous908213 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Your presumption is that code is "cheap" because of LLMs. I am challenging the premise. Maintaining code in production for a product used by billions of people is not cheap, with or without LLMs. Perhaps your shitty disposable code that you write for yourself and never subject anyone else to is cheap, but if your code is in a large, complex codebase and has to actually work for everyone who uses it, not so much. | | |
| ▲ | compiler-devel an hour ago | parent [-] | | LLMs are only getting better and more competent, especially for code well-covered by tests. On such codebases it's definitely cheaper to maintain code with a LLM than by humans alone. I presume then that the XSLT implementation in Chrome is not well-tested. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bazoom42 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > what are the good reasons for dropping legacy code? Reducing attack surface. |
| |
