6 ms·

You don't want them to experiment with new tools? The main difference now is that the experiment is public.

by svick 1y ago

gmm1990 1y ago
I wouldn't necessarily call that just an experiment if the same requests aren't being fixed without copilot and the ai changes could get merged. I would say the copilot system isn't really there yet for these kinds of changes, you don't have to run experiments on a language framework to figure that out.
stickfigure 1y ago
It's pretty obviously a failed experiment. Why keep repeating it? Try again in another 3 months. The answer is probably that the Copilot team is using the rest of the engineering organization as testers. Great for the Copilot team, frustrating for everyone else.
- raydev 1y ago
  > It's pretty obviously a failed experiment For it to be "failed" it would have to also be finished/completed. They are likely continuously making tweaks, this thing was just released.
  - vrighter 1y ago
    "This thing has just released" "It would have to be finished/completed" Do you honestly not see a problem with those two statements in such close proximity? Is it finished or is it released? The former is supposed to be a prerequisite for the latter.
    - tremon 1y ago
      What bliss it must be, to never have encountered Microsoft software before.
      - vrighter 1y ago
        oh, how I wish you were right... I had to look deep inside some microsoft software, and I think it actually shortened my lifespan
    - raydev 1y ago
      It's unfinished and it's in the public's hands. I don't see these as opposing ideas. We can debate whether they should have called this an experiment or an alpha or beta or whatever, but that's a different discussion. The fact that people are using it currently does not make it a failure. When MS shuts it down, or Copilot is wildly unprofitable for multiple quarters, team behind it quits, etc, etc, then we can determine whether it has failed or not. But if they continue to have paying customers and users are finding some benefits over not having Copilot, and MS continues to improve it (doesn't let it rot), then you'd have to provide some evidence of its failure that isn't "look at Copilot being stupid sometimes". Especially when stupidity is expected of it.
flmontpetit 1y ago
By all means. Just not on one of the most popular software development frameworks in the world. Maybe that can wait until after the concept is proven.
- mystified5016 1y ago
  Yeah, seems to me that breaking .NET with this garbage will be, uh, extremely bad
PKop 1y ago
Nah I'd prefer they focus on writing code themselves to improve .NET not babysitting a spam-machine

You don't want them to experiment with new tools? The main difference now is that the experiment is public.

by svick 1y ago

You don't want them to experiment with new tools? The main difference now is that the experiment is public.

gmm1990 1y ago

I wouldn't necessarily call that just an experiment if the same requests aren't being fixed without copilot and the ai changes could get merged. I would say the copilot system isn't really there yet for these kinds of changes, you don't have to run experiments on a language framework to figure that out.

stickfigure 1y ago

It's pretty obviously a failed experiment. Why keep repeating it? Try again in another 3 months. The answer is probably that the Copilot team is using the rest of the engineering organization as testers. Great for the Copilot team, frustrating for everyone else.

raydev 1y ago
> It's pretty obviously a failed experiment For it to be "failed" it would have to also be finished/completed. They are likely continuously making tweaks, this thing was just released.
- vrighter 1y ago
  "This thing has just released" "It would have to be finished/completed" Do you honestly not see a problem with those two statements in such close proximity? Is it finished or is it released? The former is supposed to be a prerequisite for the latter.
  - tremon 1y ago
    What bliss it must be, to never have encountered Microsoft software before.
    - vrighter 1y ago
      oh, how I wish you were right... I had to look deep inside some microsoft software, and I think it actually shortened my lifespan
  - raydev 1y ago
    It's unfinished and it's in the public's hands. I don't see these as opposing ideas. We can debate whether they should have called this an experiment or an alpha or beta or whatever, but that's a different discussion. The fact that people are using it currently does not make it a failure. When MS shuts it down, or Copilot is wildly unprofitable for multiple quarters, team behind it quits, etc, etc, then we can determine whether it has failed or not. But if they continue to have paying customers and users are finding some benefits over not having Copilot, and MS continues to improve it (doesn't let it rot), then you'd have to provide some evidence of its failure that isn't "look at Copilot being stupid sometimes". Especially when stupidity is expected of it.

flmontpetit 1y ago

By all means. Just not on one of the most popular software development frameworks in the world. Maybe that can wait until after the concept is proven.

mystified5016 1y ago
Yeah, seems to me that breaking .NET with this garbage will be, uh, extremely bad

PKop 1y ago

Nah I'd prefer they focus on writing code themselves to improve .NET not babysitting a spam-machine