←back to thread

196 points yuedongze | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
blauditore ◴[] No.46195811[source]
All these engineers who claim to write most code through AI - I wonder what kind of codebase that is. I keep on trying, but it always ends up producing superficially okay-looking code, but getting nuances wrong. Also fails to fix them (just changes random stuff) if pointed to said nuances.

I work on a large product with two decades of accumulated legacy, maybe that's the problem. I can see though how generating and editing a simple greenfield web frontend project could work much better, as long as actual complexity is low.

replies(16): >>46195970 #>>46195979 #>>46196044 #>>46196111 #>>46196149 #>>46196181 #>>46196747 #>>46197925 #>>46198024 #>>46198073 #>>46198272 #>>46198478 #>>46199426 #>>46200435 #>>46202288 #>>46207763 #
hathawsh ◴[] No.46195979[source]
I think your intuition matches mine. When I try to apply Claude Code to a large code base, it spends a long time looking through the code and then it suggests something incorrect or unhelpful. It's rarely worth the trouble.

When I give AI a smaller or more focused project, it's magical. I've been using Claude Code to write code for ESP32 projects and it's really impressive. OTOH, it failed to tell me about a standard device driver I could be using instead of a community device driver I found. I think any human who works on ESP-IDF projects would have pointed that out.

AI's failings are always a little weird.

replies(3): >>46197529 #>>46201280 #>>46203506 #
1. divan ◴[] No.46203506[source]
I start new projects "AI-first" – start with docs, and refining them on the go, with multiple CLAUDE.md in different folders (to give a right context where it's needed). This alone increases the chances of it getting tasks right tenfold. Plus I almost always verify myself all the code produced.

Ironically, this would be the best workflow with humans too.