rafaelRiv

5 ms·

1.
by rafaelRiv 8d ago
> If you're meticulously designing and engineering it really well from the start, sure functional languages represent it well without leaving much room for misinterpretation and thus bugs. But no one does that. I find functional pro
2.
by rafaelRiv 8d ago
Before llms : All tests + some type theory things After llms : Just slop without tests
3.
by rafaelRiv 8d ago
> In the only scenario where that could actually be true you wouldn't have coworkers creating unmaintainable code with LLMs now. Bingo. My highly qualified team was disbanded because the company went bankrupt. Apparently, the CEO ha
4.
by rafaelRiv 9d ago
> programming is primarily problem solving It is more than that in the sense that I have a lot of obligations to understanding the code. The reason is that if I don't understand the code, I will not be able to answer questions that
5.
by rafaelRiv 9d ago
This is a very incomplete transcript : "The complete transcript of ONE autonomous Claude sub-agent, "E2", "
6.
by rafaelRiv 14d ago
And for me, it has created a giant pile of unmaintainable code from my coworkers because of stupid management people that think they can code. Refactoring was never a substantial amounts of time for me before llms. Before I could spot a pot
7.
by rafaelRiv 1mo ago
> Not me! I'm 100x AI engineer who will certainly remain comfy an secure. LLMs are awesome! It's all those luddite doomer jerks who cling to their old ways of understanding how things work and manual coding that are going to be
8.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
I see that the fantasy world of llms is still strong
9.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
I do but I have no guarantee that the llms will make a sane implementation of the types
10.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
I program very often in idris2 and I cannot agree more. LLMs tend to take the least effort possible to the point where most of the time, llms are just not useful to program with dependent types. At least, not yet
11.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
I would say that the value of dependent types in software engineering isn't in proving all code correctness. As a user pointed out in the idris2 Zulip, most programs using dependent types don't have, and shouldn't have, proof
12.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
As if programming by hand was sooooooo inconvenient
13.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
Jesus ! You guys are very authoritharian. Even if it is now the norm, I prefer to not use that tool and I bet the more the time past and the more I will be faster than anyone that use LLMs (because of skills atrophy)
14.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
What is your metric ? How do you calculate ROI ? Strange that you didn't specify that. Also, are you sure your "25% increase" is due to LLMs ? Every time I see this claim, it is always for a short time period or the increase
15.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
LLMs are not deterministic and I still look at compiler result and I encourage people to look at it. That people don't look at the result of compiler is a problem and not a an argument
16.
by rafaelRiv 2mo ago
And you are being authoritarian by telling us which tools we should use for our careers. At this point, llms have give me more work than anything else