Its hilarious to me that before AI, I would suggest we refactor our code base to make it more readable and easier to understand and would get all the excuses. "Oh we don't have the time". " we could introduce bugs". "We would need to test that"
Now when I mention to make the code easier for an LLM to understand, they're chomping at the bit for it.
I also got to refractor a major headache away, it was finally cheap enough to do all in one go instead of putting in a new pattern and incrementally change. The "Do one, do one, now repeat" prompt pattern works really well for these.
Yeah... when the only documentation is CLAUDE.md...
Still you can see why right? Improving docs/understandability for AI is good for them - they get more capable AI. Improving it for humans only helps other people, which is less of a priority.
This is true not just for AI, but also adding more engineers to a project that isn't going well. No matter how many resources you throw at it, it will continue to be slowed down by the underlying problems with the team or company culture.
13 Comments
Kissaki@programming.dev · 48 pts · 12d
ha, nice pic
greasewizard@slrpnk.net · 23 pts · 12d
Its hilarious to me that before AI, I would suggest we refactor our code base to make it more readable and easier to understand and would get all the excuses. "Oh we don't have the time". " we could introduce bugs". "We would need to test that"
Now when I mention to make the code easier for an LLM to understand, they're chomping at the bit for it.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 12d
Before AI, refactoring was expensive, high risk, unclear payoff.
With AI, it’s cheap, higher risk, obvious payoff.
RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 11d
The obvious payoff being that engineers with an actual work ethic get to fix the mess.
Reality@feddit.org · 2 pts · 10d
I don't care about work ethic, I want clean and tested code, that performs well and is easy to extend and replace
staircase@programming.dev · 1 pts · 11d
cheap at first
olafurp@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
I also got to refractor a major headache away, it was finally cheap enough to do all in one go instead of putting in a new pattern and incrementally change. The "Do one, do one, now repeat" prompt pattern works really well for these.
FizzyOrange@programming.dev · 2 pts · 11d
Yeah... when the only documentation is CLAUDE.md...
Still you can see why right? Improving docs/understandability for AI is good for them - they get more capable AI. Improving it for humans only helps other people, which is less of a priority.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 14 pts · 12d
Weird website.
I agree with the statement though.
But it would require employers to actually invest in their offices/workers. And possibly be more independent of whatever the shareholders dictate.
codeinabox@programming.dev · 7 pts · 12d
This is true not just for AI, but also adding more engineers to a project that isn't going well. No matter how many resources you throw at it, it will continue to be slowed down by the underlying problems with the team or company culture.
CCMan1701A@startrek.website · 1 pts · 10d
We all also need to return to the office, no way the last 6 years of productivity proved anything about your ability to work.
bruh@nord.pub · 5 pts · 12d
definitely, I joined a company whose culture was toxic as hell. I didn't regret leaving it
Thorry@feddit.org · 1 pts · 12d
What is this website? Is it fully AI generated? It slorps the glorp hard tho. Fuck AI