Not knowing what cpu instructions your code compiles to and not understanding the code you are compiling are completely different things. This is yet another article talking up the (not real) capability of LLM coding assistants, though in a more round about way. In fact, this garbage blogspam should go on the AI coding community that was made specifically because the subscribers of the programming community didn't want it here, yet we keep getting these trying to skirt the line.
I say that knowing how often those words have been wrong throughout history.
Yup
Previous technology shifts were “learn the new thing, apply existing skills.” AI isn’t that. It’s not a new platform or a new language or a new paradigm. It’s a shift in what it means to be good at this.
Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves has Cristiano Ronaldo and Salvatore Ganacci in it. Having a goofy soccer character as a character is out of place in that game, I don't want real people in fighting games at all, and to top it off, Rinaldo is a piece of shit anyway.
Open source maintainers don’t want to hear this, but this is the way people code now, and you need to do your part to prepare your repo for AI coding assistants.
Plenty of people still code without LLMs
If someone can't submit a PR without it being obvious they used an LLM (regardless of if they actually do) they shouldn't be submitting a PR. This is a quality issue rather than prejudice against tools.
This bubble is going to pop, the SaaS based assistants are going to be either gone or significantly more expensive. Whether these problematic "contributors" will still be around will be interesting to see.
How fucking dare this person insist open source maintainers do all this work they're not interested in to cater to low quality "contributors".
There was a time when I worked in an office where I had a door and a 15 minute commute. I preferred that over working at home for the social aspects, but longer commute eating into my free time and and the stress of trying to focus while working in open floor plans make WFH way better than the average office
With music "sounds good" is a sufficient judgment for completeness. With generated code, someone that is an expert has to review it to make sure it does what it's supposed to, covers edge cases, doesn't have any security flaws etc. Only an expert is capable, and it is generally faster and produces better quality for the expert to just write the code instead of fixing up what the slot machine dispensed. It's a cute analogy but all it does is make it obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I always wonder this as well... I will use tools to help me write some repetitive stuff periodically. Most often I'll use a regex replace but occasionally I'll write a little perl or sed or awk. I suspect the boilerplate these people talk about are either this it setting up projects, which I think there are also better tools for
Then you're just wrong. Clean Code directly tells you to make the mistakes the author of the article points out. The absurdity of the examples in the book should be evident enough.
The problem is that people recommend clean code to junior developers all the time. Clean Code is full of terrible advice and heuristics over critical thinking throughout, and is usually foisted on burgeoning juniors when they don't know any better.
In other words, you're correct that adherents of clean code are thinking like junior developers, because that's what clean code tells you to do.
Not knowing what cpu instructions your code compiles to and not understanding the code you are compiling are completely different things. This is yet another article talking up the (not real) capability of LLM coding assistants, though in a more round about way. In fact, this garbage blogspam should go on the AI coding community that was made specifically because the subscribers of the programming community didn't want it here, yet we keep getting these trying to skirt the line.