This speaks to the low quality assurance bar that most of the software industry lives by.
If you're programming for a plane's avionics, as an example, the quality assurance bar is much, much higher. To the point where any time-saving benefits of using an LLM are most likely dwarfed by the time it takes to review and test the code.
It's easy to say LLM is a game-changer when there are no lives at stake, and therefore the cost of any errors is extremely low, and little to no QA occurs prior to being pushed to production.
"regular" code review is indeed a total theater, a travesty, a farce.
Real, meticulous code review takes absolutely forever.
This speaks to the low quality assurance bar that most of the software industry lives by.
If you're programming for a plane's avionics, as an example, the quality assurance bar is much, much higher. To the point where any time-saving benefits of using an LLM are most likely dwarfed by the time it takes to review and test the code.
It's easy to say LLM is a game-changer when there are no lives at stake, and therefore the cost of any errors is extremely low, and little to no QA occurs prior to being pushed to production.
Interesting point! I'd like to explore this a bit more.
Would you mind going into a bit more specifics/details on why regular code review practice would become unworkable, like which specific part(s) of it?
Huh? Why? How? Say the code takes one day to write, and two days to review. What about that is unworkable?