This is the thing. I do use LLMs (mostly Anthropic).
It just does not generate good useable code. I have to review every single change to a higher degree than I would my own code because it likes to slip in hidden nasties. I have to rewrite at least 50% of what it generates.
That being said, I know devs who swear that they don’t even write code anymore. Like this rust port. I can’t even fathom blindly merging something his massive.
I think we're still seeing pretty wild variance in how effective LLMs can be for code, depending on who is driving it. I've seen some folks getting themselves into messes pretty regularly with LLMs. But, ever since Opus 4.5, it's been pretty obviously better to work with it than without it, remarkably better in some use cases. Porting an application with source available and a huge existing test suite is pretty much the ideal use case for an LLM. It has everything it needs to succeed. I can't imagine why anyone would embark on a porting effort without an LLM at this point.
And yet we have stories[0] of companies judging merit on tokens used.
Rather than using these tokens to do rewrites that have the potential to massively improve the day to day, they're just burnt for the sake of burning them.
It's individual initiative, and company culture that are at play as much as budget.
> It's individual initiative, and company culture that are at play as much as budget.
I agree, but parent comment was insinuating that gp could just use an llm to verify their hypothesis, which is what I was attempting to point out in my comment. The tool isn't out of reach, but not everyone has employer sponsored LLM plans.
This is the thing. I do use LLMs (mostly Anthropic).
It just does not generate good useable code. I have to review every single change to a higher degree than I would my own code because it likes to slip in hidden nasties. I have to rewrite at least 50% of what it generates.
That being said, I know devs who swear that they don’t even write code anymore. Like this rust port. I can’t even fathom blindly merging something his massive.
I think we're still seeing pretty wild variance in how effective LLMs can be for code, depending on who is driving it. I've seen some folks getting themselves into messes pretty regularly with LLMs. But, ever since Opus 4.5, it's been pretty obviously better to work with it than without it, remarkably better in some use cases. Porting an application with source available and a huge existing test suite is pretty much the ideal use case for an LLM. It has everything it needs to succeed. I can't imagine why anyone would embark on a porting effort without an LLM at this point.
While this is true, it's also true that few people have the budget to spend a bunch of tokens on porting bun over to rust.
And yet we have stories[0] of companies judging merit on tokens used.
Rather than using these tokens to do rewrites that have the potential to massively improve the day to day, they're just burnt for the sake of burning them.
It's individual initiative, and company culture that are at play as much as budget.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110529
Tokens are the new LoC it seems!
> It's individual initiative, and company culture that are at play as much as budget.
I agree, but parent comment was insinuating that gp could just use an llm to verify their hypothesis, which is what I was attempting to point out in my comment. The tool isn't out of reach, but not everyone has employer sponsored LLM plans.
Most people do use LLMs, which is why they have the so-called pessimistic opinions they do.
Judging by most public comments, people are really mediocre at using them. I don't get how it's possible to get such poor results from them.
That's because your usecases were simple and/or small.
Otherwise, you would have known.
Unless you don't have experience and you believe the whole "You are right! it _is_ a and not b" bs...