• Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.socialOPEnglish
    12·
    3 days ago

    One thing people forget is that many human coders absolutely suck at what they do and or don’t care.

    80% of the code I’ve seen at clients is shit, some of it is hilariously bad, like absolute dog shit.

    I’ve had a meeting where I had to explain the codebase to a new joiner, we were crying laughing at how bad the code was.

    This particular fortune 500 company never cared to fix it, they just wanted more features.

    So yes AI can be shit, but god I trust it more than some of the shit I’ve seen humans write.

    Shit devs will make shit code with or without AI. Good devs will make good code, just faster with AI

    • Senal@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      3 days ago

      There’s nuance here though, LLM’s actually do a better job of code that looks like it should work.

      You get an unskilled junior in the mix, their code is obviously bad.

      You get a semi decent LLM with a competent harness in there and you get a mix of code that works and code that nearly works.

      There should be competent peer review either way, but the effort for each is potentially an order of magnitude different.

      Then add on top that the LLM can churn them out way quicker than a junior could possibly achieve and you have a recipe for a huge review burden.

      • Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.socialOPEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        Yea using a junior or a agent both comes with issues and risks. You need to know what you’re dealing with and shouldn’t trust either blindly.

        Ultimately someone has to take ownership of if shit goes wrong, and someone has to understand what the code does and why.

        If you don’t something has gone wrong.