zlacker

>>orph+(OP)
I’ve never understood the value proposition for Copilot.

In terms of difficulty, writing code is maybe on average a two out of ten.

On average, maintaining code you wrote recently is probably a three out of ten in terms of difficulty, and maintaining code somebody else wrote or code from a long time ago probably rises to around a five out of ten.

Debugging misbehaving code is probably a seven out of ten or higher.

GitHub Copilot is optimising the part of the process that was already the easiest, and makes the other parts harder because it moves you from the “I wrote this” path to the “somebody else wrote this” path.

Even during the initial write, it changes the writing process from programming (which is easy) to understanding somebody else’s code to ensure that it’s right before accepting the suggestion (which is much less easy). I just don’t understand how this is a net time/energy savings?

>>mewse+4T
Copilot also optimizes for speed to a degree. It's akin to advanced auto complete. IntelliJ auto-completion is great. As much as it pains to say this, I don't think I will be as effective writing Java in Vim as much as I am with IntelliJ. The key differentiator is the auto complete speed. Copilot I feel is just auto complete on steroids. It may not be perfect yet, but there is definitely a problem it solves.

>>liquid+vX
I pair program with a guy who completely refuses to use the keyboard unless there is no other option. He uses the mouse to cut/copy/paste everything possible. He is not handicapped. It is frustrating for me to pair program with him because of that.

He will spend an extra 3-5 seconds using his mouse in order to avoid typing.

Perhaps he is the target market.