[paiute]

I’ve been coding over 20 years. I’m guilty. But I’ve also learned that for most domains it doesn’t really matter if you understand the code, if it work, it works. Of course you have to watch for security and safety issues. Maybe ask an llm to explain the code under review?

[syndicatedjelly]

With all due respect to your experience, please don't go around saying that. I don't know why people like to brag about not understanding things. As professional software engineers, this belief makes us sound incompetent, not humble.

[paiute]

There’s an ability to understand. Most coders really have no clue how their code works. It’s not a brag, nor incompetence. Does your average dev really understand the underlying instruction set? LLM are like having a team of junior devs. I can quickly skim it, test it, ship it. I’ve worked in all sorts of safety related code. I would trust ai code over some of the crap I’ve seen (and probably wrote myself)

[saulpw]

This is such a dangerous take these days. Something can appear to "work" in the main case but be grossly or subtly broken for common edge cases. Malicious contributors (see recent xz exploit) are skilled at making code that works but also has subtle security issues. You can't just say "it doesn't really matter if you understand the code" in one breath and then "of course you have to watch for security and safety issues" in the next. How can you watch for those issues if you don't understand the code? And suggesting LLMs makes the deep mistake of thinking that an LLM understands anything at all.

[paiute]

Tell me how an exception works. I’ve seen bugs caused by people not understanding the underlying mechanism. It doesn’t mean one shouldn’t use them.