Comment by chmod775
4 months ago
LLMs were created to use the same interface as humans (language/code).
Asking humans to change for the sake of LLMs is an utterly indefensible position. If humans want terse code, your LLM better cope or go home.
4 months ago
LLMs were created to use the same interface as humans (language/code).
Asking humans to change for the sake of LLMs is an utterly indefensible position. If humans want terse code, your LLM better cope or go home.
Disagree. If some small adjustments to your workflow or expectations enable you to use LLMs to produce good, working, high-quality code much faster than you could otherwise, at some point you should absolutely welcome this, not stubbornly refuse change.
I think there's a mighty big assumption in there.
I see no reason to believe LLMs can write working let alone good or high-quality code, nor that the adjustments to my workflow or expectations will be small. But sure, if such a thing happened, I would probably welcome it.
Meanwhile, there are people who write good and high-quality working code faster than me, and they all write as much as possible on one line with the most bare-bones of text editors, so I will continue to learn from them, rather than the people who say LLMs are helping them. Maybe you should reconsider.
Somehow I don't think writing verbose English to communicate with an LLM is ever going to beat a language purpose-built for its particular niche. Being terse is the point and what makes it so useful. If people wanted to use python with their LLM instead, they have that option.
Do you swing a nailgun?
Use the tool according to how it works, not according to how you think it should work.
Chances are hell is going to freeze over before people start writing verbose q code. Q being less verbose than alternatives is the whole point. Nobody is feeling any pressure to bend over backwards to accommodate the guy who struggles to get by when his LLM can't explain a piece of code to him.
To use your nailgun analogy as an example: Waddling in with your LLM and demanding the q community change is like walking into a clockmaker's workshop with your nailgun and demand they accommodate your chosen tool.
"But I can't fit my nailgun into these tiny spaces you're making, you should build larger clocks with plenty of space for my nailgun to get a good angle!"
No, we're not going to build larger clocks, but you're free to come back with a tiny automatic screwdriver instead. Alternatively you and your nailgun might feel more at home with the construction company across the street.
I'm pretty sure the time will soon come when nobody is trying to accommodate the personal tastes and preferences of developers anymore; languages and tools will be chosen based on how well LLMs work with them, and the way the LLMs are used with those will be determined again by the traits of the tool, not the preferences of the user. Management won't be in the mood to humor devs who are stuck in their old mindset of writing code themselves.
I could be wrong. Time will tell.
1 reply →