← Back to context Comment by co_king_5 6 days ago [dead] 3 comments co_king_5 Reply zbentley 6 days ago I hope this is a troll.The best, or cheapest, or most-loved, or most extensible software is often written to be as small as is practical in the problem.Huge codebases are necessarily going to be harder to process by humans (LoC -> hours in the day) and LLMs (LoC -> tokens/context growth) alike. Yodel0914 6 days ago That’s… not how software works, no matter how it is produced. Complexity is the enemy; always. ponector 6 days ago I imagine to get more robust code your agent can replace for loop with long lines of if-then statements. Later manager can brag about how many lines of code they created!
zbentley 6 days ago I hope this is a troll.The best, or cheapest, or most-loved, or most extensible software is often written to be as small as is practical in the problem.Huge codebases are necessarily going to be harder to process by humans (LoC -> hours in the day) and LLMs (LoC -> tokens/context growth) alike.
Yodel0914 6 days ago That’s… not how software works, no matter how it is produced. Complexity is the enemy; always.
ponector 6 days ago I imagine to get more robust code your agent can replace for loop with long lines of if-then statements. Later manager can brag about how many lines of code they created!
I hope this is a troll.
The best, or cheapest, or most-loved, or most extensible software is often written to be as small as is practical in the problem.
Huge codebases are necessarily going to be harder to process by humans (LoC -> hours in the day) and LLMs (LoC -> tokens/context growth) alike.
That’s… not how software works, no matter how it is produced. Complexity is the enemy; always.
I imagine to get more robust code your agent can replace for loop with long lines of if-then statements. Later manager can brag about how many lines of code they created!