Unit tests are exactly for code that is often rewritten, because it ensures that whatever interface still behaves the same, regardless of the implementation. This a large portion of the point of unit tests: not for testing the initial implementation but confirming that any subsequent implementation behaves the same.
Did the generated code get merged? I’d be curious to see the PRs
Source: vibes
Sorry random internet person let me forward your opinion to my old Computer Science professor and have them update it.
AI as a field goes back to the 50s, long before any concept of machine learning, or what ‘intelligence’ was possible for a computer to achieve.
AI in the computation sense can refer to any system that appears intelligent. This includes simple logic. It seems to be you that is confusing AI with Machine Learning.
I only use it when I know exactly the code I’m trying to produce, but just saving time if it can write it for me. Somewhere I saw this described as ‘toil’ vs. ‘domain knowledge’, and it definitely reduces toil even if I have to correct it. Anywhere that I wouldn’t know how to correct it, I don’t trust it.
Write better code, with good names and sensible interfaces. Comments can get bugs just like code, but it doesn’t have a compiler or unit tests, so only code review keeps it aligned.
That’s why showing the expected outcome is also very important. It can feel very verbose, but the number of times I’ve been unclear as to if something worked because the documentation goes on immediately to the next step without demonstrating the success/failure states is extremely frustrating.
They were humans pretending to be robots, these are actually robots that are being remotely controlled, rather than being fully autonomous.
‘I recently took a french class, and yet I don’t even know half of these german words’
Sorry but what even is a ‘technical 1v1’?