←back to thread

548 points kmelve | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
dakiol ◴[] No.45109784[source]
To all the engineers using claude code: how do you submit your (well, claude’s) to review? Say, you have a big feature/epic to implement. Typically (pre-ai) times you would split it in chunks and submit each chunk as PR to be reviewed. You don’t want to submit dozens of file changes because nobody would review it. Now with llms, one can easily explain the whole feature to the machine and they would output the whole code just fine. What do you do? You divide it manually for review submission? One chunk after another?

It’s way easier to let the agent code the whole thing if your prompt is good enough than to give instructions bit by bit only because your colleagues cannot review a PR with 50 file changes.

replies(5): >>45109806 #>>45109818 #>>45109830 #>>45109977 #>>45110509 #
Yoric ◴[] No.45109806[source]
I regularly write big MRs, then cut them into 5+ (sometimes 10+) smaller MRs. What does Claude Code change here?
replies(1): >>45109897 #
dakiol ◴[] No.45109897[source]
The split seems artificial now. Before, an average engineer would produce code sequentially, chunk after chunk. Each chunk submitted only after the previous one was reviewed and approved. Today, one could submit the whole thing for review. Also, if machines can write it, why not let machines review it too? Seems weird not to do so.
replies(2): >>45112214 #>>45117808 #
1. Yoric ◴[] No.45117808[source]
Not sure I follow. The limitation has never been about the developer being able to write a complex feature in one MR. It has always been about the other developer not being able to review a complex MR.

So far, nothing I've seen convinces me that machines can (yet) write or review code autonomously (although they can certainly be useful as assistants). Maybe some day.