32 karma · joined September 23, 2025
For example, you can pull the library code to your working environment and install the coding agent there as well. Then you can ask them to read specific files, or even all files in the library. I believe (according to my personal experience) this would significantly decrease the possibility of hallucinating.
If my workflow is;
1. Write documentation so that the problem and even the solution to the problem is well explained. 2. Instruct coding agents to work as the document described. 3. Check its if its implementation is correct, and improve its implementation if necessary.
I feel the experience is not as good as me implementing the solution myself, and it may even take more time.
However, there are a lot of trivial work in software development. For example, the behavior of a button, or editable text. Same to any kind of art, most developers in the industry are doing trivial or ordinary work, and few are solving challenging problems. What I mean is that those who do trivial work will be culled, or liberated, from doing that as a job, while the elite could remain there to solve unique, challenging problems.
Recently I have been working with coding agent to fix bugs and implement new features. I implemented my solution first and let coding agent come up with its own solution. Most of the time, the coding agent came up a better solution than mine. Most of the time, its solution was not worse than mine, and I would keep most of its code and only do some minor improvement. Most probably, I am not an experienced/advanced developer, since I seldom deal with advanced math/algorithms/architecture in my day-to-day work. Thus, it would be natural that we have different feeling to the same thing.
I am interested in Dijkstra's idea about natural language programming you mentioned, is that EWD667?
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...
No offense, but I feel this kind of talking is ridiculous. If it is a better practice, then it should be done without explicitly telling so. You do not tell them "Do not get things wrong," right? If it is a matter of choice over design patterns, for example, use functional programming or object oriented programming paradigm, then it should be said more clearly as what I have done.
Now, if it is neither something that is definitely a better practice nor something you can state clearly with a known, well-defined word, how can you make sure what you have said really make a difference if you have not said it?
True, recently I started feeling that part of what I had been doing is simply translating natural language to programming languages. Though coding also involves things such as algorithm and data structures, context and background knowledge, but these can all be done in natural language. Once the natural language description is given, what remains is only translation. LLMs have good knowledge of almost anything, though they are currently weak on inference or derivation, but this already makes them good on the two end of software engineering -- context knowledge and translation.
I understand those people who hate LLMs for coding, I partly share the feeling, because I enjoy typing on a keyboard, editing part of the code, reading the characters, I am an Emacs user. If LLMs can do the work, even if just save the typing and editing part, some of the fun has been eliminated for me.
Think about chess and Go, though AI can easily beats human now, people are still playing it. For programming, if one day AI can do 80% of the programming work, I guess only few of programmers today can keep doing it as a job. Just like few people can play chess and Go as their job.