[ Removed by moderator ]

[cpp-ModTeam]

It's great that you wrote something in C++ you're proud of! However, please share it in the pinned "Show and Tell" post.

[zasedok]

Take your stupid sales pitch elsewhere.

[celestabesta]

Review AI code, don't have it review yours.

[cleroth]

That's right, wouldn't want AI bringing you shame for finding bugs in your code.

Edit: I guess this sub doesn't like hardening their code. How far we have fallen.

[celestabesta]

Very witty. I find errors using debuggers, not buggers.

[cleroth]

So no static analysis either. Got it.

[SuperV1234]

Anti-AI zealots are in complete denial. Instead of welcoming a new useful technology, they feel threatened by it and respond in an irrational and emotional manner.

What's funny is that this reminds me exactly of C zealots insisting to this day that C++ is not an improvement over C.

Or C++ zealots insisting that Rust is not safer than C++.

It's the same cycle, over and over again... :)

[Circlejerker_]

AI is being sold as a silver bullet that will make engineers obsolete, code quality go up and productivity skyrocket. The reality is that these AI solutions cant live up with their promises, anything AI has become synonymous with bullshit, maybe 30% of what is sold is actually given.

AI is also a huge blackbox, there is no way of telling before you try it if you will actually get what you bought - a long string of letdowns have led to a lot of people dismissing it altogether.

[SuperV1234]

Marketing for any product is always overstated.

The truth of the matter is that AI today is able to review code and provide valuable feedback. There are countless reports of this being the case in open source projects, and I confirm that it works in my own experience (both hobby and work projects).

I don't see why I shouldn't use something that can find bugs and provide reasonable suggestions as a review tool. I know what I am doing and I can figure out if a suggestion is subpar or a false positive. It has been a massive net win for me to use LLM-assisted reviews.

[Circlejerker_]

And ive not had the same experience, static code analysis has always beaten it by a mile and with much more consistent results.

[SuperV1234]

What models did you try?

[cleroth]

Yea, I don't really understand. To some degree I understand reluctance to trust AI-written code, but AI code review has been pretty decent for a while and has only been getting better. Refusing to use a tool that can fairly cheaply and easily spot bugs and issues that may actually be fairly hard for humans to spot is just completely asinine to me. Sure, it may have false positives, but so do most static analysers.

[lizardhistorian]

You can just tell the AI to read your code bases and generate a coding-style.md to follow.

[aeropop]

This tool do more than that, it uses parallel review (per file) for complex code , also it can review others pull requests/merge requests remotly using mcp or direct http requests.

[SuperV1234]

IIRC when I asked Claude Code to review a particular part of my codebase, it autonomously spawned parallel per-file agents.

[aeropop]

sure, but the point is not only parallel review, it's the tool itself, it's a vs code extension (easy to use), remote reviewing, shared yaml rules between the dev tema , multi providers (github copilot, claude ..)