←back to thread

413 points martinald | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vb-8448 ◴[] No.46198283[source]
It's not just about "building" ... who is going to maintain all this new sub-par code pushed to production every day?

Who is going to patch all bugs, edge cases and security vulnerabilities?

replies(4): >>46198304 #>>46198394 #>>46198683 #>>46200328 #
soco ◴[] No.46198304[source]
The theory goes very simple, you tell the agent to patch the bug. Now the practice though...
replies(2): >>46198353 #>>46198650 #
fullstackwife ◴[] No.46198353[source]
yeah, in practice: would you like to onboard a Boeing 747 where some of the bugs were patched by some agents,

what is the percentage risk of malfunction you are going to accept as a passenger?

replies(2): >>46198372 #>>46198419 #
TuringNYC ◴[] No.46198419[source]
>> yeah, in practice: would you like to onboard a Boeing 747 where some of the bugs were patched by some agents,

In this case, the traditional human process hasn't gone well either.

replies(3): >>46198448 #>>46198450 #>>46198512 #
1. geon ◴[] No.46198450{3}[source]
It is working great as long as it is adhered to and budgeted.