| > Github Copilot is just great. I find it's great as long as what you're doing is very straightforward and boilerplaty. I find I have to go and re-write a lot of what it outputs though, since it tends to be for a lack of a better word, noodly. You often have to invert conditions and move stuff around for Copilot's suggestions otherwise everything has 7 levels of indentations and redundant condition checks. Often with this re-write, the Copilot solution isn't really saving any significant time, as you could have just written it correctly to begin with. > ChatGPT for a project in an unknown domain. I'd say this is true for problems that are well explored with plenty of tutorials. Ask for help doing something that's even the slightly off the beaten path and you'll get entirely hallucinatory APIs. Let's say you wanted to write a Parquet file in Java, for example. It's not a particularly strange thing to want to do, except I've never managed to get ChatGPT or Phind to produce a meaningful answer to that inquiry. You get correct-looking answers, except they use code that doesn't exist. > ChatGPT for debugging This I do agree with. You can just give it a function and ask "where is the bug in this code?". If there is a bug it will say so. If there isn't a bug, it may sometimes also say there is a bug, but it's pretty easy to verify and dismiss the answer at that stage. |