The obvious answer is that LLMs are not quite the machine gods they're marketed as, innit.
replyI don't understand what you're saying.
replyYour 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.
replyLLMs 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.
reply> what are the good reasons for dropping legacy code?
replyReducing attack surface.
That is a good reason. Is XSLT known for security problems the same way that CGI was?
reply