zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
> An LLM can be instructed to just figure all that shit out. Often, it will drop you precisely at that golden moment where shit almost works, and development means tweaking code and immediately seeing things work better.

Well, except that in order to fix that 1% you'd need to read and understand whatever the LLM did and then look for that 1%. I get the shills just thinking about this, whether the original programmer was human or not. I'd rather just write everything myself to begin with.

>>puttyc+Zb
Reading code is vastly quicker than writing it from scratch.

>>nojito+wo
This is a lie, unless you are just speaking of the mechanics of cursorily skimming it. Reading code to understand it enough to commit it in my name is harder and slower than writing it myself.

>>abenga+ny
Firstly, you are not the other poster, so I don't know how you can say it's a lie with conviction.

Second, reading code to understand it is a skill that you need to practice to get better at. That might be your issue.

>>dymk+jG
It’s not the OP’s issue. That reading code is harder than writing it is as close to a consensus belief as we get in this industry.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

>>sarche+vR
Which is why it's a key skill that differentiates professional software engineers from amateurs.

>>simonw+lS
You think Joel is an amateur? And the scores of other professional engineers who have written about this are also amateurs?

I mean they could be wrong, but I don’t think you can call them amateurs.

>>sarche+oT
I think Joel is a professional, and that's why he says "reading code is harder than writing code".

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying "anyone who thinks reading code is harder than writing code is an amateur". I'm saying "reading code IS harder than writing code, which is why being good at reading code is what separates experienced programmers from beginners."