[radlad]

Just as a data point counter to yours, I'm a Vim user with a 150+ wpm typing speed, and I have to say I find Copilot massively useful.

In Go, it's great for dealing with a lot of the repetitive code one finds themselves writing.

When writing Android apps, it's useful for API discovery!

[DonHopkins]

What a tragic waste of fast typing speed. If only you were using Emacs, your typing speed would be multiplied by Emacs's superior capabilities, with multiple shell windows and keyboard macros and many other powerful packages thanks to its deep and flexible extensibility, and you would be so much more productive and powerful! Typing speed isn't everything. ;)

Disclaimer: My cat is named Emacs, so if you say anything bad about Emacs, I will take it personally, because he is such a fine cat, named after such a fine text editor.

PS: https://github.com/zerolfx/copilot.el

[OOPMan]

Are you guys seriously involved in a WPM pissing contest?

[bheadmaster]

Do you know how many hours I've spent grinding gtypist? Of course I'm going to involve myself in WPM pissing contests.

Not doing so would be like going to the gym and not posting your muscle flexing photos on social media. It's just taking away the joy.

[disqard]

Ssshhhh! You just scared away a 200+ wpm person from adding on to this interesting conversation.

[radlad]

The point I was _actually_ trying to illustrate was that wpm and vim are irrelevant, and that Copilot is worth a try even if you're a fast typist that uses (your favorite editor here).

What does this comment add to the conversation?

[bheadmaster]

The initial question was "Is there really a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on Copilot?", not "Are all Vim users who type fast anti-Copilot?".

I don't mean to dismiss your data point, just to put things in context. Since Copilot is generally recognized as a useful tool, there will of course be Vim users with great typing speed who still find it useful regardless.

Now, when it comes to Go, I find that there isn't much repetitive code to write (especially since generics landed in Go 1.18). Some people say that error handling is repetitive, but I find that those people just bubble up errors without adding appropriate context, which makes them less useful. But I haven't personally found a scenario in which I explicitly thought "damn, I know exactly what I need to write, but it's so long - I wish someone would write it for me".

[radlad]

And yet the comment I'm replying to didn't say "I won't ever rely on Copilot," it said "I can say with confidence that Copilot isn't that useful to me."

I made my comment because I hope others who are fast typists, and familiar with their tools, do give Copilot a try. I expected to hate it, didn't try it for a long time, and was quite surprised when I did.

> But I haven't personally found a scenario in which I explicitly thought "damn, I know exactly what I need to write, but it's so long - I wish someone would write it for me".

Test case setup comes to mind. Another place it's useful is for writing long function-interface signatures. Or adding a bunch of similar "case" statements to a switch.

Generics still have a ton of limitations.