I think it is domain of young developers who just want choice to do what they do, but don’t care how.
Even you use LLM you often have similar mindset.
I belong to group of people with a weakness that I want to understand every step of the code that I produce. When LLM produces something I need to understand what it does (which takes time) then I realize I could do it better way, so I rewrite it. So LLM just slows me down.
I understand many things clearly, but when it comes to binary yes/no true/false 1/0 type results my brain tends to answer: Yes, it’s one of those. I don’t think I’ve made a double inversion “working” error since the 1990s, but I know I’ve seen others do it - even in Rust.
I’ve seen human coders do this quite a bit, even myself - always unintentional, usually brain-bending when you find the first inversion.
I think it is domain of young developers who just want choice to do what they do, but don’t care how.
Even you use LLM you often have similar mindset.
I belong to group of people with a weakness that I want to understand every step of the code that I produce. When LLM produces something I need to understand what it does (which takes time) then I realize I could do it better way, so I rewrite it. So LLM just slows me down.
I understand many things clearly, but when it comes to binary yes/no true/false 1/0 type results my brain tends to answer: Yes, it’s one of those. I don’t think I’ve made a double inversion “working” error since the 1990s, but I know I’ve seen others do it - even in Rust.