I shipped code I don't understand – and I was proud of it(end-of-determinism.vercel.app)
end-of-determinism.vercel.app
I shipped code I don't understand – and I was proud of it
https://end-of-determinism.vercel.app/article
10 comments
Interesting, I wonder how these “life and death” industries have been disrupted by AI. I bet it’s indeed different, but that programming pace makers and flight control software changed as well!
Did you read the article? The point isn’t really that I literally didn’t understand the code I wrote. Understanding is just very different from writing every loc, it actually always has been.
Regarding the styling - I actually gave it a lot of thought, sorry you didn’t like it. Will consider creating a cleaner version with less styling
Regarding the styling - I actually gave it a lot of thought, sorry you didn’t like it. Will consider creating a cleaner version with less styling
I feel like this gets at something, but we’re not quite there yet at understanding the language to use:
“I shipped code I didn’t understand” Suggests to me that it didn’t follow the Vercel rule of:
“Would you be comfortable owning a production incident tied to this pull request?”
Why didn’t you understand it, it used a type of loop you have never used before? You read the interface but not the implementation? Or did it really in the end do work that was different from your intentions such that, you didn’t understand if your code met the requirements you set forth? How do you know you didn’t understand it? Did you read it and it was just French to you?
I suspect it’s probably something like b? You’re probably wouldn’t be proud of C (I mean maybe if you’re just a chaos agent) and it sounds like you’ve been coding long enough that it’s not A. But B has been true every time we included a library
This touches in some good points, but I continue to think in this world where everything has changed, more is the same than different, and part of our goals in the language we use is to ensure we emphasize we’re talking about what’s changed, not strictly speaking aim for accuracy.
“I shipped code I didn’t understand” Suggests to me that it didn’t follow the Vercel rule of:
“Would you be comfortable owning a production incident tied to this pull request?”
Why didn’t you understand it, it used a type of loop you have never used before? You read the interface but not the implementation? Or did it really in the end do work that was different from your intentions such that, you didn’t understand if your code met the requirements you set forth? How do you know you didn’t understand it? Did you read it and it was just French to you?
I suspect it’s probably something like b? You’re probably wouldn’t be proud of C (I mean maybe if you’re just a chaos agent) and it sounds like you’ve been coding long enough that it’s not A. But B has been true every time we included a library
This touches in some good points, but I continue to think in this world where everything has changed, more is the same than different, and part of our goals in the language we use is to ensure we emphasize we’re talking about what’s changed, not strictly speaking aim for accuracy.
Slop/AI assisted detected. You could do better (I hope)
And follow this:
> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And follow this:
> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Me or OP? I'm 100% finger-generated. AMA. How can I do better? I can learn.
Do you have any thoughts on the content of what I said?
Do you have any thoughts on the content of what I said?
And why does this essay's type style change dozens of times? Who is that helping? It's like a cut and pasted ransom note.