> Good luck adding new code to it.
Interestingly, your whole comment implicitly has the answer to this. In the future you don't add code or read it, you only add test cases and have the loops work on covering the new case.
Interestingly, your whole comment implicitly has the answer to this. In the future you don't add code or read it, you only add test cases and have the loops work on covering the new case.
Maintainability isn't just for humans. An LLM working in an unmaintainable codebase has the same problems we do. It doesn't necessarily follow that if your code can pass your tests today then it will be able to pass the tests of tomorrow. I'm in healthcare. Regulations and payor rules change constantly. I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but I do know that the code I have an LLM generate tends to focus on the here and now (at the expense of the future). Sometimes that's okay, though. I don't know much about writing a compiler, so it could theoretically work.
This is by no means an anti-AI post (I use the hell out of these tools). But I can still see the cracks in them.
Ultimately there isn't enough information on how to most effectively maintain and evolve large, complex software with LLMs yet. We aren't even a year out from Opus 4.5.