[dathinab]

I don't think if complexity is the right metric.

front-end JS can easily also become very complex

I think a better metric is how close you are to reinventing a wheel for the thousands time. Because that is what LLMs are good at: Helping you write code which nearly the same way has already been written thousands of times.

But that is also something you find in backend code, too.

But that is also something where we as a industry kinda failed to produce good tooling. And worse if you are in the industry it's kinda hard to spot without very carefully taking a hounded (mental) steps back from what you are used to and what biases you might have.

[mrybczyn]

LLM Code Assistants have succeeded at facilitating reusable code. The grail of OOP and many other paradigms.

We should not have an entire industry of 10,000,000 devs reinventing the JS/React/Spring/FastCGi wheel. Im sure those humans can contribute in much better ways to society and progress.

[itishappy]

> LLM Code Assistants have succeeded at facilitating reusable code.

I'd have said the opposite. I think LLMs facilitate disposable code. It might use the same paradigms and patterns, but my bet is that most LLM written code is written specifically for the app under development. Are there LLM written libraries that are eating the world?

[dbmikus]

I believe you're both saying the same thing. LLMs write "re-usable code" at the meta level.

The code itself is not clean and reusable across implementations, but you don't even need that clean packaged library. You just have an LLM regenerate the same code for every project you need it in.

The LLM itself, combined with your prompts, is effectively the reusable code.

Now, this generates a lot of slop, so we also need better AI tools to help humans interpret the code, and better tools to autotest the code to make sure it's working.

I've definitely replaced instances where I'd reach for a utility library, instead just generating the code with AI.

I think we also have an opportunity to merge the old and the new. We can have AI that can find and integrate existing packages, or it could generate code, and after it's tested enough, help extract and package it up as a battle tested library.

[itishappy]

Agreed. But this terrifies me. The goal of reusable code (to my mind) is that with everybody building from the same foundations we can enable more functional and secure software. Library users contributing back (even just bug reports) is the whole point! With LLMs creating everything from scratch, I think we're setting ourselves on a path towards less secure and less maintainable software.

[thelastparadise]

I (20+ years experience programmer) find it leads to a much higher quality output as I can now afford to do all the mundane, time-consuming housekeeping (refactors, more tests, making things testable).

E.g. let's say I'm working on a production thing and features/bugfixes accumulate and some file in the codebase starts to resemble spaghetti. The LLM can help me unfuck that way faster and get to a state of very clean code, across many files at once.

[erosivesoul]

What LLM do you use? I've not gotten a lot of use out of Copilot, except for filling in generic algorithms or setting up boilerplate. Sometimes I use it for documentation but it often overlooks important details, or provides a description so generic as to be pointless. I've heard about Cursor but haven't tried it yet.

[KoolKat23]

This is the thing it works both ways, it's really good at interpreting existing codebases too.

Could potentially mean just a change in time allocation/priority. As it's easier and faster to locate and potentially resolve issues later, it is less important for code to be consistent and perfectly documented.

Not fool proof and who knows how that could evolve, but just an alternative view. One of these big names in the industry said we'll have AGI when it speaks it's own language. :P.