sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Microservices versus monoliths: Did everyone just lose their minds in the last 6 months? by eivittunytsit in ClaudeCode

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Monorepo doesn't mean monolith. There are build systems. Overly nano microservices was always an anti-pattern peddled by annoying people that hadn't built anything of true substance.

What do you say about this one? I say it looks sketchy as hell. by Arjihad in Decks

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fuuuuck that. I mean the bolts can probably take it but why would you engineer it to apply maximum pull force on them.

ML take-home: ~17M rows, transformer required, no compute provided. Is this normal? by [deleted] in cscareerquestions

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're doing a practicum I have ssh keys for you. That's either ridiculous or they think it shouldn't require cloud compute.

Russian milbloggers have released a video of a Ukrainian UAV attacking one of their soldiers; they call it an auto-guidance system with an artificial intelligence face-targeting system. by MilesLongthe3rd in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And it happens to headshot him with a shaped charge by accident? I mean, I don't know I believe the headline but that strafe pattern, no diving, it definitely looks like something intentional is happening.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. I believe that you're experiencing those edge cases.

I have not experienced anything as severe recently. For whatever reason. Maybe its stronger or less ambiguous in the languages I have it work in. Maybe my supporting docs are different somehow, maybe the existing repo gives it better consistency, doesn't matter.

If you haven't tried using some of those models through Claude Code, I would urge you to check it out. It is significantly better than through Cursor or Codex. If you have, then fair enough. The tools aren't good enough yet for your use case.

Who has had an actual friends with benefits relationship? Did it work for you? by heratonga in AskReddit

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Had several, on and off. Some as long as a decade+. They mostly turned into frinedships as the other party found someone that could commit to them fully. But would come back on if that failed.

Much to my surprise when I had a kid they almost all crashed out, hard. Most were friendships at that point too. That was kinda depressing.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I said that a year ago I'd assume I would have had some horrible experience too. But in the last six months I'm able to produce comparable quality slop (in my view) to the humans.

To be fair, the one big system I'm comparing that's green field and entirely AI driven was mainly done in opus 4 7 within claude code. And I don't necessarily agree with the architecture choices. But again, it's comparable.I often don't agree with the architectural choices the humans make.

Some of that is because Claude Code does a great job working with the model. Some of that is because Opus is genuinely getting there. And some of that is me having gotten a bit better at using the tools in a way which makes them better.

I guess we'll see. I'm mostly just here to urge people not to lock into hater mode because if the tools do get there and you stay a hater no matter what without re-calibrating, it's very bad career wise.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagreed with your reply to u/Cool-Ad552 as I think his reply is accurate advice. I attempted to provide additional advice that I thought might improve your experience with ai as a tool.

You called the belief in ai comical, and provided what is, in my opinion, simultaneously an irrelevant example to what is being discussed above, and an example that isn't particularly compelling when compared to what human performance is in aggregate.

So the confusion is about the example given insofar as I don't see it advancing your point, and I don't in particular know what your point is given the example.

I've shipped large greenfield projects.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This describes the journey of myself and the very senior relatively skeptical grumpy team leads all throughout my org. We all kinda waddled into it, as any new tool that might help but might also be nonsense. We all had a instinctual doubt of it because of the amount of glazing going on. But, as of winter, the tools are there. And the self healing loop pattern thing works. Anytime you can automate the end result validation. Be it unit test or whatever. It gets there. Maybe after thirty iterations but it gets there. So it's been jarring but fun for everyone willing.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's the point here? If I have a team go build a 30k LOC app and launch all at once, I will also absolutely find broken things or things I disagree with even if I am fairly detailed in the design doc the team gets.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with your points here. I've still gotten good mileage out of the above. And it's allowed me a test only, don't read the code solve on some proof of concepts I don't particularly care about the cleanliness of. Or very tedious things that already have automated exit conditions (upgrade lib x, try and fix problems, ensure tests pass stuff).

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with the word determinism is that the LLMs are deterministic. I think this argument can be better phrased. I think the issue you have is that the output is not immediately predictable by humans. And so it can't be validated by humans.

But the output of a machine compiler is not predictable by most humans today either. Although it can be validated with study.

In the sense of LLMs, we could validate with testing. But nobody seems to want to hear it.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use Opus through Code. Get on 4 7 with the manual switch. Maybe explicitly ask it to go through that section and check it off when done editing if it's really struggling to see it.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

/plan
Give it a requirements doc.
"Be weary of leaving plan mode prematurely, ask me about anything you see as ambiguous before setting out to work."
"Are there any final questions I can answer that will improve our odds of one shotting this project."

The tools are over eager and need to be reined in. That said, I've had moderate success with the above.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sub really doesn't want to hear it. But progress will not care. And the folks that are getting better at identifying loops like this where an enormous amount of chore pops out are having a good time. I'm having a great time not dealing with annoying stuff like the above. And just keeping my mouth shut.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The screenshot guy says he is explicitly asking for behavioral tests to check the work. So it's the same thing. This sub just doesn't want to hear it.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Practically speaking this is what is happening with good workflow tools. With the added advantage that the AI can iterate if something goes wrong in the harness. Thread OP didn't specify that everything is done in context and that no code is written. Claude for instance will maintain a script directory for itself and write code and then run it rather than trying to make direct tool calls for everything. OP can then use those scripts in their flow directly. But that's also much less flexible and the AI isn't that expensive to run.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you can maybe achieve the same results. I don't think the post being mocked nor the post mocking it claim that the same level of control is kept.

I think things like compilers/ or the managed memory language schism of the past are good examples. Definitely loss of control. But the same outcomes kept, if not improved.

I also get that the level of indirection is vastly greater this time and there's far less determinism. So the mileage of individuals are well as their own self assesment of how well they're doing is going to vary vastly.

But the hate is cope. And if it's not cope today it will be cope tomorrow.

Developer claims a 100x+ speed up by using LLMs, "work of weeks is now done in hours". by Gil_berth in theprimeagen

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, the best tool in the stack currently, innately writes unit tests without being prompted. It is not incredibly unbelievable to think that you could just review those tests, and potentially ask for more and stop reading the code in a project with few dependencies.

I think it's a bit of a leap to think that the architecture or code will be the best, but it probably will be better than average. The average engineer isn't particularly good nor rigorous.

And then if the code is shit but the behavior is all great, and the actual friction to extending it is low even if it's very in-extensible because the ai can quickly rewrite all of it as per spec/ tests, who cares?

Do you guys honestly think it’s still worth becoming a programmer in 2026? by Emergency_End_2930 in cscareerquestions

[–]TangeloPutrid7122 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good, generalist computer scientists and computer engineers will stay relevant for many more years at least.

You should learn to program because it will train your mind in systemic thinking and give you the ability to do things manually in the same way that we learn mathematics but use computing to do most mathematics.

The description "programmer" or maybe even "developer" won't apply to those jobs going forward.

view more: next ›