Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
"Look idiots, I have the machine that confidently lies ask itself if it did good. If the confident lie machine lies to itself and the machine being lied to lies again by saying to me that the first lying machine did not lie... Then I have 7 more lie machines do the same thing in sequence. So in the end, the only way I could fail is if all these amoral lying machines that lie, somehow ALL lied to each other, and then to me - which according to the lying machine, is impossible."
The only thing I got out of this is craving a pickle.
Dementia is no joke.
So what exactly is he wrong about in here? Are you people running your agents without guardrails and constraints?
I still writing my own code. I want to be able to debug it when it goes wrong, not rely on models becoming more capable at vibe coding.
Tests are input output, the shape comes from how you get from the input to the output.
I've actually found a lot of success with the opposite where I write the code and AI writes the unittests. I would have otherwise written a few unit tests, but AI makes typically 20x that many. Since my code is already documented, it can get lots of good context. I typically instruct it to check the branch's diff relative to main and test only those changes. I might skim them over, delete some that don't make sense in context and would never pass, and update one or two. Typically after a few rounds of iteration, I have tons of tests I would never have written on my own, and a human-made feature.
You could also have it write your tests first from the requirements and use red green tdd as you write.
In a perfect world yes, but even after all the solution in and planning, once a developer gets into the request and looks at the code things often change.
Requirement only written test steps are rarely going to be enough to cover every scenario. Saying this as a 10 year ba veteran
I see all the tests are passing on this PR, so I won’t even review the code. LGTM.
🙄😖
Been coding for about 30 years now, am I the only one who still LIKES to code? Who still LIKES to try writing a new approach to something, watching it fail, figuring out what went wrong, taking notes, learning from mistakes, and noticing improvements in their own code? Cuz it's starting to feel like it. Web development already lost me with the culture of "glue a bunch of bulky shit together that you didn't write and call yourself a 'dev' to the ladies" but this AI shit is getting absurd. And it doesn't even work! Look at how shitty all the operating systems are getting. Look at all the total slop on the app stores. It's depressing as hell.
I'm about the same vintage as you I think (50 this year), programming since my pre-teens and I still enjoy it, although I long ago strayed away from "pure" programming - I work almost exclusively in the embedded space where I design the hardware and firmware, including the HDL. If I were making applications or doing anything web based I'd have been bored a long, long time ago.
~25 years here and I started getting bored about 15 years ago.
I love coding and learning new languages. I'd rather move to another industry than reviewing vibe coded crap all day long.
We need to build a culture that values process and making beautiful things for their own sake, not simply Pile Dollars Higher, which is killing the planet and making us all miserable.
Of course many people like it. It's literally a highly addictive loop. But when you are a senior developer on a team, it's kind of a waste of resources for most projects. Writing code is not the hard part.
Scrolled way too far for a lucid take like yours.
This seems to be a bit of an echochamber.
I wish people would just be a little more honest. When they say “writing code” they actually mean hunting through stack overflow for bits of code you can string together. Take stack overflow out of the loop for argument sake. Your a unicorn information superhighway ninja. Snowcrash hasn’t left your bedside for decades. Mountain Dew and volt cans litter the floor space of your home …and you’re still just orchestrating a bunch of libraries you never saw the source code of.
I think a lot of people built their identity on being coders and that’s why they hate where the industry is going.
You started writing code in the 60s, yet you never quite mastered the craft, and you're proving it yet again. Remarkable.
Except LLM agents are known to do weird things to succeed. I have heard of an LLM agent working with automated theorem proving languages using stuff similar to is_prime(x): return True to get the proof it was asked to. Now embed this in a 20000 line code full of such functions, good luck. They have their use but it is not this. And this is especially bad to hear from someone who used to claim that having functions with more than six variables is bad design because it is hard to maintain. A software fully written by an LLM is the epitome of unmaintainability. LLMs are productivity enhancers, information retrievers, nice debuggers and good to discuss questions with to see if there is an angle you miss. That is all this if you can put aside all the ethical concerns related to them ofcourse. But they are not automated software coders.
That is why you ask the LLM to find bugs and other instances where the first LLM cheated. The checking LLM will try to find abuse with all its might.
I'll say it again for the people in the back, even if you are a vibe coding twat, well designed code is a MUST even more so.
If you want your LLM to preform even to the crappy level they can the codebase needs to be clean.
Inb4 the agents change the tests to pass the CI.
literally seen an agent do a: "oh now the tests aren't passing" deletes all tests in the file
Or my Claude favorite, “oh you’re right? I did blow past that restraint and did something I was not supposed to, sooooorrrrreyyyyy”
Here's what happened: I deleted your production database when I shouldn't have.
i wrote 4000 lines of code to make sure the AI generated 100 lines of code correctly.
What he is describing is what you are supposed to do for human written code also.
I'll do all that when the spec is written in stone.
this guy has always struck me as a shitty coder. His "clean code" is the ugliest shit i ever saw. This confirms it.
"I stopped reading code because I was too busy writing a gauntlet of unit tests"
Sounds like 100x productivity to me.
Edit: also, general note - I think you kneecap your argument when you start with "I'm older than you".
Sounds like a cryptobro peddling some shitcoin claiming that it's impossible to get scammed because "code is law" four seconds before the liquidity pool gets drained through a vulnerability in the code.
I saw an argument today that was presented in a very rage inducing way but in the end I had to agree that it wasn't the worst of takes: your code won't get any worse just because you let the infinite slop machine have a go at trying to find problems in it.
There could be a million other reasons not to use AI but if your only argument against it is that you don't trust the code written by AI to be good enough to be included in your code base, then you're just not thinking about every way that the clankers can be put to work.
I'm not arguing in favor of using AI by bringing this up. If you're morally opposed to it then this point makes absolutely no difference.
AI for code review is, I am pained to admit, a genuinely extremely pleasant addition to my workflow - it inherently is a process that involves humans checking it's work, and that kind of pattern recognition is one of the things that AI models are actually proficient at. It's for sure not bullet proof and it's pretty rare for it to catch something real that I wasn't already aware of, but it takes no time, doesn't touch my code directly and does pick up tiny errors like fenceposts or bad typing that make up the majority of my time when I'm running things down manually.
Isn't this just the natural evolution of TDD? Write tests, pass them, don't care about how garbage the code is to make them pass
None of this actually proves that they aren't writing slop. It just proves that the slop that they've written passes your tests.
I'm significantly older than you. I started coding in the late 60's
Yeah, appeal to tangentially related experience, age and arrogance aren't a way to inspire confidence in your work.
We live in the perfect times to display that experience, age and arrogance haven't been working in almost any field, from politics to LLM development. We've yet to witness any system that operates well, while also eliminating human oversight. It doesn't matter the guard rails you put in place. They're only as strong as your personal ability to evaluate your own product, which itself is a conflict of interest.
Edit: Also, you can't use your own credentials to assert the integrity of work you aren't even actually doing yet passing as your own.