To be fair, if you give me a shit code base and expect me to add features with no time to fix the existing ones, I will also just add more shit on the pile. Because obviously that’s how you want your codebase to look.
To be fair, if you give me a shit code base and expect me to add features with no time to fix the existing ones, I will also just add more shit on the pile. Because obviously that’s how you want your codebase to look.
And if you do that without saying you want to refactor, I likely won't stand up for you on the next round of layoffs. If I wanted to make the codebase worse, I'd use AI.
It doesn't help that the AI also has no ability to go backwards or edit code, it can only append. The best it can do is write it all out again with changes made, but even then, the chance of it losing the plot while doing that is pretty high.
This is what I was thinking, if you give the code to a person and ask them to finish it, they would do the same.
If you rather ask the LLM to give some insights about the code, it might tell you what's wrong with it.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I don't see why anyone would expect anything else out of a "what is the most likely way to continue this" algorithm.
save