←back to thread

Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

(danieldelaney.net)
858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | 04 Feb 25 16:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[04 Feb 25 16:47 UTC] 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 #
marcosdumay ◴[04 Feb 25 17:43 UTC] No.42935876[source]▶
> It can be a great way to communicate them

It's usually not. Narrative is a famously flawed way to communicate or record the real world.

It's great for generating engagement, though.

replies(2): >>42936033 #>>42936122 #
1. sangnoir ◴[04 Feb 25 17:58 UTC] No.42936122[source]▶
> Narrative is a famously flawed way to communicate or record the real world.

...and yet with it's flaws, it's the most flexible in conveying meaning. A Ted Chiang interview was on the HN frontpage a few days ago, in it, he mentions that humans created multiple precise, unambiguous communication modes like equations used in mathematical papers and proofs. But those same papers are not 100% equations, the mathematicians have to fall back to flawed language to describe and provide context because those formal languages only capture a smaller range of human thought compared to natural language.

This is not to say chat has the best ergonomics for development - it's not, but one has to remember that the tools are based on Large Language Models whose one-trick is manipulating language. Better ergonomics would likely come from models trained or fine-tuned on AST-tokens and diffs. They'd still need to modulate on language (understanding requirements, hints, variable names,and authoring comments, commits and/or PRs).