←back to thread

Nobody knows how to build with AI yet

(worksonmymachine.substack.com)
526 points Stwerner | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lordnacho ◴[] No.44616832[source]
I'm loving the new programming. I don't know where it goes either, but I like it for now.

I'm actually producing code right this moment, where I would normally just relax and do something else. Instead, I'm relaxing and coding.

It's great for a senior guy who has been in the business for a long time. Most of my edits nowadays are tedious. If I look at the code and decide I used the wrong pattern originally, I have to change a bunch of things to test my new idea. I can skim my code and see a bunch of things that would normally take me ages to fiddle. The fiddling is frustrating, because I feel like I know what the end result should be, but there's some minor BS in the way, which takes a few minutes each time. It used to take a whole stackoverflow search + think, recently it became a copilot hint, and now... Claude simply does it.

For instance, I wrote a mock stock exchange. It's the kind of thing you always want to have, but because the pressure is on to connect to the actual exchange, it is often a leftover task that nobody has done. Now, Claude has done it while I've been reading HN.

Now that I have that, I can implement a strategy against it. This is super tedious. I know how it works, but when I implement it, it takes me a lot of time that isn't really fulfilling. Stuff like making a typo, or forgetting to add the dependency. Not big brain stuff, but it takes time.

Now I know what you're all thinking. How does it not end up with spaghetti all over the place? Well. I actually do critique the changes. I actually do have discussions with Claude about what to do. The benefit here is he's a dev who knows where all the relevant code is. If I ask him whether there's a lock in a bad place, he finds it super fast. I guess you need experience, but I can smell when he's gone off track.

So for me, career-wise, it has come at the exact right time. A few years after I reached a level where the little things were getting tedious, a time when all the architectural elements had come together and been investigated manually.

What junior devs will do, I'm not so sure. They somehow have to jump to the top of the mountain, but the stairs are gone.

replies(15): >>44616871 #>>44616935 #>>44617102 #>>44617254 #>>44618137 #>>44618793 #>>44621101 #>>44621200 #>>44621741 #>>44621995 #>>44622452 #>>44622738 #>>44623119 #>>44624925 #>>44624959 #
chamomeal ◴[] No.44618793[source]
I also am enjoying LLMs, but I get no joy out of just prompting them again and again. I get so incredibly bored, with a little side of anxiety that I don’t really know how my program works.

I’ll probably get over it, but I’ve been realizing how much fun I get out building something as opposed to just having be built. I used to think all I cared about was results, and now I know that’s not true, so that’s fun!

Of course for the monotonous stuff that I’ve done before or don’t care a lick about, hell yeah I let em run wild. Boilerplate, crud, shell scripts, CSS. Had claude make me a terminal based version of snake. So sick

replies(3): >>44621988 #>>44622813 #>>44624892 #
1. swat535 ◴[] No.44624892[source]
My biggest problem with working LLMs is that they don't understand negatives and they also fail to remember their previous instructions somehow.

For example:

If I tell it to not use X, it will do X.

When I point it out, it fixes it.

Then a few prompts later, it will use X again.

Another issue is the hallucinations. Even if you provide it the entire schema (I did this for a toy app I was working with), it kept on making up "columns" that don't exist. My Invoice model has no STATUS column, why do you keep assuming it's there in the code?

I found them useful for generating the initial version of a new simple feature, but they are not very good for making changes to an existing ones.

I've tried many models, Sonnet is the better one at coding, 3.7 at least, I am not impressed with 4.

replies(1): >>44627761 #
2. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.44627761[source]
I've tried many models, Sonnet is the better one at coding, 3.7 at least, I am not impressed with 4.

If Sonnet 3.7 is the best you've found, then no, you haven't tried many models. At least not lately.

For coding, I'd suggest Gemini 2.5 Pro, o3-mini-high, or Opus 4. I've heard good things about Grok 4 as well, so if you're OK with that whole scene and the guy who runs it, maybe give it a shot.

If you have already done so and still think Sonnet 3.7 is better than any of them, then the most likely explanation is that you got incredibly lucky with Claude and incredibly unlucky with the others. LLMs aren't parrots, but they are definitely stochastic.