5 ms·
How much of the product were you able to build to say it was good/reliable? IME, 70 hours can get you to a PoC that "works", building beyond the initial set of
by throwaway_2898 1y ago
How much of the product were you able to build to say it was good/reliable? IME, 70 hours can get you to a PoC that "works", building beyond the initial set of features — like say a first draft of all the APIs — does it do well once you start layering features?
- petralithic 1y agoThis has been my experience. The greenfield approach works up to a point, then it just breaks.
- Maxion 1y agoIt depends on how you use it. The "vibe-coding" approach where you give the agen naive propmts like "make new endpoint" often don't work and fail. When you break the problem of "create new endpoint" down into its sub-components (Which you can do with the agent) and then work on one part at a time, with a new session for each part, you generally do have more success. The more boilerplate-y the part is, the better it is. I have not really found one model that can yet reliably one-shot things in real life projects, but they do get quie close. For many tasks, the models are slower than what I am, but IMO at this point they are helpful and definitely should be part of the toolset involved.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago> The more boilerplate-y the part is, the better it is. I have not really found one model that can yet reliably one-shot things in real life projects, but they do get quie close. This definitely feels right from my experience. Small tasks that are present in the training data = good output with little effort. Infra tasks (something that isn't in the training data as often) = sad times and lots of spelunking (to be fair Gemini has done a good job for me eventually, even though it told me to nuke my database (which sadly, was a good solution)).