Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse?
by serenloss on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @12:47AM
(#27890185)
This seems like a gross simplification. We want factorable code because that helps with DRY. DRY code is more portable and the end product is smaller in size. Also, there's performance considerations.
I'll be surprised if there's a tool like copilot anytime soon that can identify need for memoization, for example, and implement it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse?
by toomanyducks on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @01:02AM
(#27890249)
But if a human isn't messing with the code, the code doesn't matter - what the bot does to the code matters. And if the bot can handle bad code in a way humans can't, that means something. Code quality will become less important if automated tools, the ones reading and writing the code, don't care about it.
Re:Is GitHub Copilot a blessing, or a curse?
by city41 on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @11:02AM
(#27894616)
In some ways this has been the case for a long time. Tools that generate code, such as Visual Studio's form designer as a simple example, often generate really bad code. But no one ever reads it, and if you need to make a change you just run the tool again. So the fact the code is bad isn't very relevant.