upvote

points

by gxs1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby aidos21 hours ago|
next
[-]
I wasn’t trying to make a “got em” comment.

The fact that this is possible and works at all is mind blowing - even more mind blowing is that my 8 yo is growing up in a world where they can talk to a machine to produce a custom application in seconds and they don’t realise how mind blowing it is!

In terms of the code, it would take even less time than that to tidy it up. For this application you wouldn’t bother. That’s almost a form of “premature optimisation” unless you’re actually planning on doing more work on it.

My hunch is that what the world is about to see a lot of is much bigger bits of work, or changes to other bigger existing systems done by people without the skills to know how to contain the complexity. That’s going to come with a burden.

reply
upvoteby ranger_danger1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
The only reason it's a spaghetti mess is because it's not being prompted correctly by an expert.
reply
upvoteby bakugo1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Are these experts in the room with us right now? Because if even the creators of Claude seemingly can't prompt non spaghetti code (see: Claude Code leak), I'd like to know who can.
reply
upvoteby ranger_danger1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How do you know they were even trying in the first place? Have you analyzed the prompt they used?
reply
upvoteby bakugo1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
How do you know they weren't? Have you analyzed the prompt they used?

There's no shortage of examples of unmaintainable spaghetti AI code, Claude Code is just one of many. If you have examples of good codebases maintained by "prompting experts", I'd love to see them.

reply
upvoteby ranger_danger23 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Pretty much any existing project (that started before LLMs were a thing) who accepts LLM-generated code, I would argue fits your requirement, since the PRs adhere to their existing code style and guidelines, or they wouldn't be accepted in the first place. In those cases it may be impossible to tell that an LLM was even involved.

Recent notable examples would be the Linux kernel or cURL.

reply
upvoteby gxs1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The difference is he’s not passing judgement on it or jumping to conclusions, fyi
reply
upvoteby Dylan168071 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Nobody is jumping to conclusions. There's enough examples to come to perfectly reasonable conclusions and judgements.
reply
upvoteby Ancapistani1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Speaking for myself - they may not have cared to.

I can absolutely prompt AI to following established patterns and produce nice, clean output in a legacy codebase. I also have a completely separate set of skill files that I’ve been building organically by allowing the agent to do make most decisions about conventions. The latter produces code that would be a nightmare to modify by hand, but I’m still able to iterate on it many times faster than I could in the codebase where code quality is a requirement.

“Code quality” is mostly “human readability”, and I’m simply not sure that’s a valuable attribute anymore.

reply
upvoteby bakugo1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
> “Code quality” is mostly “human readability”

That's an extremely narrow view of programming, and shows a complete lack of experience.

reply
upvoteby gxs1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
100%

A novice writing code by hand could also write spaghetti code

If you've worked in enterprise software, you might have seen that even competent professionals can write spaghetti code

At this point AI really is just garbage in garbage out

reply
upvoteby gxs1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Haha it’s so comical how predictable downvotes are - which is a proxy for knowing what developers sensibilities are

Wild to me that we see this even in what is a relatively more “sophisticated” forum

reply
upvoteby Dylan168071 days ago|
parent|
[-]
The downvotes are because you're just saying some devs are bad, you're not explaining how/why incorrect prompting is the only reason it's a mess. Or even the main reason.
reply