Comment by user43928
19 hours ago
I've been working on the app for four months, and I am clearly not talking about code quality.
I am talking about product quality and maintainability. Both are more than adequate.
I know this because I have worked on it for an estimated 300 hours. Has the author practiced a similar approach for even a week? I doubt it.
2 months simply isn't enough time for evolving system needs. You don't get to know if your code is maintainable until the use cases have expanded and usually other devs will come on board, and what guarantee is there that they will direct the ai the same way? Your core features today may be solid, but expanding and adding cases coupled with debugability is what shows off maintainable code. Two months simply isn't enough time. Two years, maybe. I have maintained the same aggressively growing software from start up to public company to begin acquired. Two months is literally nothing in the maintenance lifecycle
> worked on it for an estimated 300 hours
If humans aren't needed why have you had to spend 300 hours?
I upvoted your comment BTW because I think you might be right, but I'm not sure. I still see people doing a lot of work, despite LLMs.
I work on my project for 2 years now and using an LLM always came back to bite me. Learning how something works is needed, slow and painful - but pain is gain.
If this works for you - awesome. Until it doesn't.
As always there is 0 code or link. All talk.
And when do you expect my approach will stop to work? The core features are complete and the codebase is already sizable.
I will not publish my app on GitHub for free. It's a paid app, and I am putting in the hours not for your approval, but for commercial gain.
I also do not think it wise to link my HN account to my real name and expose my opinions and comments to my employer and colleagues.
Then you may as well said you've solved P=NP.
We do not require links to your app. What people are expecting is a description of your approach and sample outputs. So that someone else can try it and have the same standard of output. That's how you make a point that your approach is good.
When we buy books like "The Practice of Programming" or "The Pragmatic Programmer", it's because we are hoping to learn useful and productive behaviors. It isn't to hear boasts about how good the authors are good at using tools.
Even self-help books follow this pattern: Do this, expect that. They're not "Have you tried this too" or "I don't know about you, but I've got good results myself".
9 replies →
more talk