←back to thread

469 points samuelstros | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
1zael ◴[] No.44998995[source]
I've literally built the entire MVP of my startup on Claude Code and now have paying customers. I've got an existential worry that I'm going to have a SEV incident that will trigger a house of falling cards, but until then I'm constantly leveraging Claude for fixing security vulnerabilities, implementing test-driven-development, and planning out the software architecture in accordance with my long-term product roadmap. I hope this story becomes more and more common as time passes.
replies(6): >>44999056 #>>44999088 #>>44999121 #>>44999144 #>>44999151 #>>45001583 #
foobarbecue ◴[] No.44999088[source]
[flagged]
replies(5): >>44999101 #>>44999317 #>>45001279 #>>45001766 #>>45077840 #
BeetleB ◴[] No.44999317[source]
> I bet you could replace your slop pile with a tenth of the lines of clean code, and chances are it'd be less work than you think.

Actually, no. When LLMs produce good, working code, it also tends to be efficient (in terms of lines, etc).

May vary with language and domain, though.

replies(1): >>44999411 #
stavros ◴[] No.44999411[source]
Eh, when is that, though? I'm always worrying about the bugs that I haven't noticed if I don't review the changes. The other day, I gave it a four-step algorithm to implement, and it skipped three of the steps because it didn't think they were necessary (they were).
replies(1): >>44999429 #
BeetleB ◴[] No.44999429[source]
Hmm...

It may be the size of the changes you're asking for. I tend to micromanage it. I don't know your algorithm, but if it's complex enough, I may have done 4 separate prompts - one for each step.

replies(2): >>44999450 #>>44999451 #
1. stavros ◴[] No.44999451{3}[source]
It was really simple, just traversing a list up and down twice. It just didn't see the reason why, so it skipped it all (the reason was to prevent race conditions).