Re:How the Claude Code team does code review
by jazzyjackson on Sunday October 18, 2026 @01:31AM
(#50138172)
My point wasn’t that compilers are just as bad as LLMs, but that whether humans or robots are writing code, it’s still going to be Just Good Enough to ship.
Re:How the Claude Code team does code review
by troupo on Sunday October 18, 2026 @05:03AM
(#50139296)
How do you know it's "Just Good Enough" to ship? I will repeat: We were complaining about awful software before LLMs. Why is it now absolutely okay to write significantly more shitty software just because it's LLMs?
For example, for all the claims of how LLMs are better than humans, or how you can ship gazillion LoC easily, we've yet to see any significant number of actual good software to come out of this slopathon. Even the frontier labs with unrestricted access to their own models who boasting how they merge 30000 PRs per day [1] ship unbelievable buggy shit. But it's okay because it's LLMs who cares?
[1] https://claude.dev/blog/solving-code-review-at-anthropic/
LLM output isn't compiler output. It's a lot of shitty code that contains duplication, subpar algorithms, bad data access patterns etc. We were complaining about awful software before LLMs. Why is it now absolutely okay to write shitty software just because it's LLMs?
Also: literally no one is talking about "writing software as art". We 're talking about this: "many things (redundant code, duplicate code, overly complex architecture, etc.)"