Using LLMs at Oxide

> it is presumed that of the reader and the writer, it is the writer that has undertaken the greater intellectual exertion. (That is, it is more work to write than to read!)

This applies to natural language, but, interestingly, the opposite is true of code (in my experience and that of other people that I've discussed it with).

See: Kernighan's Law

> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?

https://www.laws-of-software.com/laws/kernighan/

I think people misunderstand this quote. Cleverness in this context is referring to complexity, and generally stems from falling in love with some complex mechanism you dream up to solve a problem rather than challenging yourself to create something simpler and easier to maintain. Bolting together bits of LLM-created code is is far more likely to be “clever” rather than good.

What an amazing quote!

That's because embarrassingly bad writing is useless, while embarrassingly bad code can still make the computer do (roughly) the right thing and lets you tick off a Jira ticket. So we end up having way more room for awful code than for awful prose.

Reading good code can be a better way to learn about something than reading prose. Writing code like that takes some real skill and insight, just like writing clear explanations.

Some writing is functional, e.g. a letter notifying someone of some information. For that type of writing even bad quality can achieve its purpose. Indeed probably the majority of words written are for functional reasons.