News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Getting Good Results from Claude Code by hoppp on Saturday August 09, 2025 @09:48AM (#44846421)
Sometimes its faster I write it, sometimes its not.

I prompt like: give me go structs for this json "pasted json" and write 2 functions to save it and load it from "nosql db I use"

That basically speeds up writing glue code

The business logic I write myself

Its faster to do the business logic myself than review what the Ai did.

Re:Getting Good Results from Claude Code by cratermoon on Saturday August 09, 2025 @10:41AM (#44846867)
> give me go structs for this json "pasted json" and write 2 functions to save it and load it from "nosql db I use"

Those tools existed before LLMs and were local, fast, and most importantly free.

Why people continue to re-invent tools and workflows we already have, I don't know. Perhaps they just like to be able say "but this uses AI!"

Re:Getting Good Results from Claude Code by hoppp on Saturday August 09, 2025 @01:21PM (#44848337)
It was an example

I only use what I need, plain and simple, and its free yup, works local too.

Llms suck at large projects, so I break it down to small simple things, what I wrote is an example of a small thing, I keep the tasks that large.

I can write my own code. I just use LLMs to speed up. I use whatever workflow suits me the most and saves me from typing much

Code generating with LLMs is a reinvention of local tools that used to generate code, yes. Its an advanced autocomplete.

But give me another tool that can generate code from natural language full of typos. I dont think your claim that it existed before llms is correct at all. Ever code generation task could be handwritten to be reusable but that takes developer hours

Re:Getting Good Results from Claude Code by cratermoon on Sunday August 10, 2025 @12:02AM (#44852666)
> give me another tool that can generate code from natural language full of typos

Give me a tool that doesn't generate code full of errors.