zlacker

Possibly yes, if you're only contrasting it with being able to be faster.

I mean, it's sort of a false dichotomy -- it's omitting a "default speed" for writing boilerplate that is neither enhanced nor impeded.

the potential issue with an enhanced speed for writing boilerplate is that it means that there'll just be more and more boilerplate to maintain over time, and it's not clear what that cost over time will be.

How much more effort will be expended to replace things in multiple places? It exacerbates existing issues of "these two things look almost the same, but someone manually modified one copy...should that change be propagated?"

Meaning, it's essentially an ad-hoc code generator. Code generation can be a very useful technique (see protobufs), but without the ability to re-generate from a source?

Perhaps a possible enhancement might be for copilot to keep track of all blurbs it generated and propose refactoring/modifying all copies?

>>chrsig+(OP)
> I mean, it's sort of a false dichotomy -- it's omitting a "default speed" for writing boilerplate that is neither enhanced nor impeded.

I'm not sure. I think that understanding is omitting a "default amount" of boilerplate that will have to be written regardless of one's individual preference that is really a function of the language / framework of choice, the existing codebase and the problem at hand.

Removing that boilerplate would be ideal but is not always possible given limited resources, time constraints and the usual inability to make sweeping changes to the codebase

So we settle for the second best solution which is to automate away that tedious process (or short of that provide developers with tools to get it out of the way faster) so we can all focus on "real work"

>>airstr+ef
I agree that there's some default amount of boilerplate that needs to be written -- but one isn't impeded by that -- it's just built into the task.

An impedance would be something to adjust the status quo in a negative direction e.g., a hardware failure