Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @mischievoustomato@0.5dollah.click
7666@7666@comp.lain.la (2026-08-30 15:06:04)
@mischievoustomato why does one break changes down into meaningful commits. why does one try to work maintainability into their code. why does one shoot for modularity, managing dependencies, creating functions to prevent re-implementing the same thing three times over three different ways in three different spots.

if you can answer that question you should see the problem. if you can't, you're not qualified to be doing this stuff and will make garbage.
---Reply---
christmas tomato@mischievoustomato@0.5dollah.click (2026-08-30 15:10:16)
it makes things easier to manage, roll back, contain, et cetera (it's 1am). But again, I reckon LLMs trivialize a lot of this.

---Replies---

7666@7666@comp.lain.la (2026-08-30 15:14:24)
@mischievoustomato they don't unless you deliberately ask them to. they don't know when to stop and think unless you know when to ask them to.

the problem is LLMs have no opinions. they'll just do "industry standard" things based on the gamut of what they've been trained on. that gamut is generally sort of shit, and it magnifies the operator's shit for a shit sandwich. that's how you get 2,000 line commits.

some of the best software engineers i've met are very opinionated people doing things solidly differently from others because they've been through the trenches and stubbed their toe a billion times on what not to do and their way ends up saving everyone time and effort even if it's a bit baroque. i'm just as opinionated in the same way. if i can channel that opinionated behavior into LLM operation then it *can* work out fine. but you gotta stub your toe before you know why you shouldn't do X or Y.