←back to thread

858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.42934898[source]
I'm growing to the idea that chat is a bad UI pattern, period. It is a great record of correspondence, I think. But it is a terrible UI for doing anything.

In large, I assert this is because the best way to do something is to do that thing. There can be correspondence around the thing, but the artifacts that you are building are separate things.

You could probably take this further and say that narrative is a terrible way to build things. It can be a great way to communicate them, but being a separate entity, it is not necessarily good at making any artifacts.

replies(17): >>42934997 #>>42935058 #>>42935095 #>>42935264 #>>42935288 #>>42935321 #>>42935532 #>>42935611 #>>42935699 #>>42935732 #>>42935789 #>>42935876 #>>42935938 #>>42936034 #>>42936062 #>>42936284 #>>42939864 #
t_mann ◴[] No.42935789[source]
Ok, but what is a good pattern to leverage AI tools for coding (assuming that they have some value there, which I think most people would agree with now)? I could see two distinct approaches:

- "App builders" that use some combination of drag&drop UI builders, and design docs for architecture, workflows,... and let the UI guess what needs to be built "under the hood" (a little bit in the spirit of where UML class diagrams were meant to take us). This would still require actual programming knowledge to evaluate and fix what the bot has built

- Formal requirement specification that is sufficiently rigorous to be tested against automatically. This might go some way towards removing the requirement to know how to code, but the technical challenge would simply shift to knowing the specification language

replies(4): >>42935904 #>>42935921 #>>42935971 #>>42938191 #
1. lucasyvas ◴[] No.42935904[source]
Disclaimer: Haven't used the tools a lot yet, just a bit. So if I say something that already exists, forgive me.

TLDR: Targeted edits and prompts / Heads Up Display

It should probably be more like an overlay (and hooked into context menus with suggestions, inline context bubbles when you want more context for a code block) and make use of an IDE problems view. The problems view would have to be enhanced to allow it to add problems that spanned multiple files, however.

Probably like the Rust compiler output style, but on steroids.

There would likely be some chatting required, but it should all be at a particular site in the code and then go into some history bank where you can view every topic you've discussed.

For authoring, I think an interactive drawing might be better, allowing you to click on specific areas and then use shorter phrasing to make an adjustment instead of having an argument in some chat to the left of your screen about specificity of your request.

Multi-point / click with minimal prompt. It should understand based on what I clicked what the context is without me having to explain it.