• aquovie@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    More than anything, it depends on the developer using it. In my experience, most are just slop shovelers that don’t read or review what Claude does. Then it falls on the PR reviewer (me) to be an asshole: Did you review your own code? Do you understand what this part over here does? Why did you choose this method versus alternatives?

    Unless you tell Claude/Opus otherwise, it’s not going to take the initiative to refactor things, tidy up parts it didn’t touch, or hell, it won’t even spellcheck things. Can you really call it a language model if it outputs misspelled words? Its unit tests are great boilerplate but never comprehensive enough for me.

    Claude is the developer that puts zero pride or effort in their work beyond the bare minimum to not get fired.

    • rothaine@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Yes I agree, and honestly code review is now the key skill.

      My company recently started exploring “AI interviewing”, to test candidates on “AI proficiency”, and the questions are all around prompt engineering (is that even a thing anymore?) and stuff. Like no, make sure they can read the fucking code!

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Prompting for refactoring, requirements, specifications, unit tests, integration tests, distribution / install scripts, all of those “good ideas” are things you need to nudge even Claude to do. Once you get it in the habit of doing them it does them automatically more often but still requires the occasional nudge.