Comments are lies that will happen sometime in the future
Comments are always overlooked if gode gets refactored. Language servers can’t/won’t parse them and they’re easy to overlook.
If you name your functions/variables clearly, put complex logic into clearly named functions and keep the same level of abstraction in every function (which never exceeds roughly 50 lines), you hardly need any comments, if any.
Comments are for behavior that’s not possible to convey clearly through code.
I agree: it is a tool. And maybe you might at some point be able to create something worthwhile with it. But I’ve yet to see something wwrthwhile.
The main way “generative AI” is currently being used is by giving some idea some kind of form. If the original idea is just lame, or has been done to death (like a pixar poster of insert any atocricy here) : it will show.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
You can also see that in the weird AI bro behavior, when they refuse to share their prompts: In any traditional art project people are glad to share their techniques. But AI bros realize that there’s so little effort involved that they are overly protective of their prompts so that people may not find out how low effort their “creativite” process actually is.
To give the org credit, they found and fixed the problem – a typo in a script, apparently – but as a result, the sequencing of the demos was disrupted and the result was a little confusing.
I’m gonna quote this, the next time my boss asks why we need a thorough testing culture.
Edit: Also: language servers and static code checkers safe money, so don’t hassle me about why I need to config neovim while clocked in.
We’ve passed the "Marty McFly came to this year date for existential dread and it was hilarious. Can’t wait for the year when we’re as far from the release of Austin Powers as the movie was from the wild 60s.