←back to thread

123 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.229s | source
Show context
lelanthran ◴[] No.45212622[source]
This works until you get to the point that your actual programming skills atrophy due to lack of use.

Face it, the only reason you can do a decent review is because of years of hard won lessons, not because you have years of reading code without writing any.

replies(7): >>45212731 #>>45212756 #>>45213395 #>>45213636 #>>45213875 #>>45213884 #>>45214429 #
CuriouslyC ◴[] No.45214429[source]
You're right, reviews aren't the way forward. We don't do code reviews on compiler output (unless you're writing a compiler). The way forward is strong static and analytic guardrails and stochastic error correction (multiple solutions proposed with LLM as a judge before implementation, multiple code review agents with different personas that have been prompted to be strict/adversarial but not nit-pick) with robust test suites that have also been through multiple passes of audits and red-teaming by agents. You should rarely have to look at the code, it should be a significant escalation event like when you need to coordinate with Apple due to XCode bugs.
replies(3): >>45214862 #>>45214873 #>>45216082 #
1. dingnuts ◴[] No.45214862[source]
good fucking luck writing adequate test suites for qualitative business logic

if it's even possible it will be more work than writing the code manually