[capableweb]

> Maybe not every single thing, but you should know what your lines of code that implement it do. You can't debug if you don't know why you wrote what you wrote.

That's the thing though, the point of code is not to be perfect in isolation, it's to solve a problem. And if you eventually can solve a problem by treating it as a blackbox, who cares?

> That's irrelevant to your argument

It's not though, it's to illustrate that you can have a real-life impact using code that you don't understand at the time.

> I guarantee you that the code sucked regardless

That is irrelevant though, because no matter if it sucked or not, it worked and solved a real problem, which is the reason we (I at least) write code in the first place.

> Someone, somewhere, is going to have to clean up your mess. And they are cursing your name right now.

Well, and here I am cleaning up someone else's mess, so what? Life goes on.

You seem to fall into the classical programmers trap of thinking that code has to be beautiful just to look at in order to be valuable, and anyone who disagrees is a shitty programmer and it's their fault you have to refactor some shitty code right now. It's not, they're not, and it's not their fault.

[danjoredd]

There are so many things wrong with this argument that it will take me a while to list every one of them.

>And if you eventually can solve a problem by treating it as a black box, who cares

When the inevitable security bug gets introduced because you decided to be lazy, you will care. Black boxes make spaghetti code that is inherently buggy and insecure from the get-go. My current job is to clean up from programmers like you who don't give a crap about the code as long as it "just werks." Am I glad to have the job? Yes. Does it piss me off to see such blatantly terrible code? Also yes.

>It's not though, it's to illustrate that you can have a real-life impact using code that you don't understand at the time

Guess what? Programming lifted me out of poverty as well. I never use black boxes and never have. If I can't understand the stack overflow post, I don't use it. I find a solution I can understand. It's irrelevant and a logical fallacy. "well using shitty code helped me not be poor so it's good lmao!" Just no.

> That is irrelevant though, because no matter if it sucked or not, it worked and solved a real problem, which is the reason we (I at least) write code in the first place.

If writing spaghetti code causes more problems than it solves, it's not irrelevant. And guess what? It does. It might be years before these problems are revealed, but when that code gets exploited over something simple that a cursory understanding could have solved, then yeah. That's on you. It "just werks" is not a valid excuse.

> You seem to fall into the classical programmers trap of thinking that code has to be beautiful just to look at in order to be valuable, and anyone who disagrees is a shitty programmer and it's their fault you have to refactor some shitty code right now. It's not, they're not, and it's not their fault.

For one, ad hominem. Second, Beautiful code =\= good code. I have seen terrible code that was written beautifully sticking to a single programming style. I have seen great code that looked a little messy. I can tell when the programmer behind the code knew what they were doing or not. I like beautiful code, but I prefer secure code.

Also

>and it's their fault you have to refactor some shitty code right now.

It...literally is. They wrote it. If they write shitty code, and I'm the one that has to fix it, the blame falls on them for writing it in the first place without any quality in mind.

[soulofmischief]

Have you ever managed another programmer? Asked them to produce some code, received it, pointed out flaws or inefficiencies, tweaked it, and even learned something new from their process?

That's how you treat ChatGPT. What you are displaying is ignorance on how to best grasp these tools, and wrapping it in a superiority complex doesn't make it more palatable.

Try being less negative and close-minded, and explore how these tools can augment your existing workflow. If you lack the capability to differentiate good from bad code, maybe you are just too inexperienced to rely on the tool at an advanced level. If you don't lack that capability, then I fail to understand what the problem is; GPT has vastly sped up my productivity.

[danjoredd]

>Have you ever managed another programmer? Asked them to produce some code, received it, pointed out flaws or inefficiencies, tweaked it, and even learned something new from their process?

Yes, I regularly fix ancient code and perform code reviews.

>That's how you treat ChatGPT. What you are displaying is ignorance on how to best grasp these tools, and wrapping it in a superiority complex doesn't make it more palatable.

Are you literally illiterate? In my initial argument towards you, my main argument was that it's okay to use, but you need to know how to do your job even without it. See what I said: "It's the same with ChatGPT. ChatGPT is a fantastic tool that can benefit your workflow. I use it all the time myself. However, being 100% dependent on it for work is a dangerous game."

My argument with the other guy is that you are a bad programmer if you blindly copy and paste code from chatGPT without knowing what it does. You have to know the basics before pasting it, otherwise, your code becomes totally unmaintainable. This other guy believes that not only is it acceptable, but preferable to post code without understanding it as long as it "just werks."

> If you lack the capability to differentiate good from bad code, maybe you are just too inexperienced to rely on the tool at an advanced level.

THATS. WHAT. I. AM. SAYING.