> Boilerplate are tedious, but not really time-consuming.
In the aggregate, almost no programmer can think up code faster than they can type it in. But being a better typist still helps, because it cuts down on the amount you have to hold in your head.
Similar for automatically generating boilerplate.
> If I don't know, how can I trust the generated code to be correct?
Ask the AI for a proof of correctness. (And I'm only half-joking here.)
In languages like Rust the compiler gives you a lot of help in getting concurrency right, but you still have to write the code. If the Rust compiler approves of some code (AI generated or artisanally crafted), you are already pretty far along in concurrency right.
A great mind can take a complex problem and come up with a simple solution that's easy to understand and obviously correct. AI isn't quite there yet, but getting better all the time.
> In the aggregate, almost no programmer can think up code faster than they can type it in.
And thank god! Code is a liability. The price of code is coming down but selling code is almost entirely supplanted by selling features (SaaS) as a business model. The early cloud services have become legacy dependencies by now (great work if you can get it). Maintaining code is becoming a central business concern in all sectors governed by IT (i.e. all sectors, eating the world and all that).
On a per-feature basis, more code means higher maintenance costs, more bugs and greater demands on developer skills and experience. Validated production code that delivers proven customer value is not something you refactor on a whim (unless you plan to go out of business), and the fact that you did it in an evening thanks to ClippyGPT means nothing—-the costly part is always what comes after: demonstrating value or maintaing trust in a competitive market with a much shallower capital investment moat.
> In the aggregate, almost no programmer can think up code faster than they can type it in. But being a better typist still helps, because it cuts down on the amount you have to hold in your head.
I mean on the big picture level sure they can. Or in detail if it is something that they have good experience with. In many cases I get a visual of the whole code blocks, and then if I use copilot I can already predict what it is going to auto complete for me based on the context and then I can pretty much in a second know if it was right or wrong. Of course it is more so for the side projects since I know exactly what I want to do and so it feels most of the time it is having to just vomit all the code out. And I feel impatient, so copilot helps a lot with that.
In the aggregate, almost no programmer can think up code faster than they can type it in. But being a better typist still helps, because it cuts down on the amount you have to hold in your head.
Similar for automatically generating boilerplate.
> If I don't know, how can I trust the generated code to be correct?
Ask the AI for a proof of correctness. (And I'm only half-joking here.)
In languages like Rust the compiler gives you a lot of help in getting concurrency right, but you still have to write the code. If the Rust compiler approves of some code (AI generated or artisanally crafted), you are already pretty far along in concurrency right.
A great mind can take a complex problem and come up with a simple solution that's easy to understand and obviously correct. AI isn't quite there yet, but getting better all the time.