[rubicon33]

I’m an “old school programmer” just like you, but still use Claud code.

For greenfield projects it’s absolutely faster to churn out code I’ve written 100 times in the past. I don’t need to write another RBAC system, I just don’t. I don’t need to write another table implementation for a frontend data view.

How Claud helps us is speed and breadth. I can do a lot more in shorter time, and depending on what your goals are this may or may not be valuable to you.

[phyzome]

What kind of projects are you working on that aren't amenable to the sort of code reuse or abstraction that normally addresses this sort of "boilerplate"?

[stingraycharles]

There are lots of projects like that, especially when doing work for external clients.

Very often they want to own all the code, so you cannot just abstract things in your own engine. It then very easily becomes the pragmatic choice to just use existing libraries and frameworks to implement these things when the client demands it.

Especially since every client wants different things.

At the same time, even though there are libraries available, it’s still work to stitch everything together.

For straightforward stuff, AI takes all that work out of your hands.

[zwnow]

I was wondering about that as well, copy and paste has been a thing for a lot longer than LLMs...

[DominoTree]

Trusting an AI to write an RBAC system feels like asking for trouble

[latexr]

I’m always suspicious of comments like yours. You’re written the same thing 100 times in the past and don’t have the base on a snippets manager or a good project you can get the implementation from? Did you really rewrite the same thing 100 times and are now preferring to use a tool which is slower and more resource intensive than just having been a little bit efficient in the past in saving something you reuse all the time?