[jcgrillo]

Not unlike me! The difference is it's incremental. I write one function, then write a test, and get it working. Then, building on that stable foundation I write another function, more tests, etc. Crapping out an entire pile of garbage at once is not the way.

I guess I'm holding it wrong? Is there a better way I could phrase my query?

[NeutralCrane]

Your are prompting it to output the entire thing at once. If you want it to approach the problem incrementally, prompt it incrementally.

[jcgrillo]

So should I be following up and asking it to refine its solution like this?

> The program you wrote doesn't compile. Please fix it such that it compiles.

Then, maybe, if we're lucky, we progress to the second step:

> Ok, now the program compiles but there are tons of warnings about dead code, unreachable code, blanket trait implementations which aren't actually used, etc. Could you please fix those?

Then assuming we clear that hurdle,

> Great! The program compiles without warnings, but when I run the tests it panics due to an integer overflow. I see in your encode_rle function you're inexplicably left-shifting a small unsigned integer by 60, which will absolutely for certain cause it to overflow and panic. Would you mind explaining why in the actual fuck you did this and please fix it? Kthx.

And on, and on... You know what? No. Fuck that shit. I refuse. I have absolutely no confidence this process will come up with a working, trustworthy implementation of the algorithm.

[a1j9o94]

Not, the person you were replying to, but I think a better example of incrementally here would be

- write me a file with the function definitions for this problem. - compile that - write a test that test x outcome - compile that - then have it start writing functionality

If it's trying to one shot a complex problem that you would typically break up, your prompt is probably too vague.

[neom]

"I'm genuinely trying but I just can't understand it." to "You know what? No. Fuck that shit. I refuse." in 3 hours - Are you genuinely trying? Or just don't like how it works? the hype is that lots of people are happy to work in the manner you outright refused. To be fair to you: if I could drive, I probably wouldn't take the bus either, fuck that shit. :)

[jcgrillo]

I absolutely do not want to review multiple haphazardly written[1] attempts at the same computer program over and over again. That's a ridiculous way to spend time. So I'm not willing to try asking the bot over and over again to rewrite it. I'd rather write it myself and be confident in the result.

I think this only works for things where it just doesn't matter whether it actually works correctly, which to me seems synonymous with "problems that aren't worth working on".

[1] just look at this https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...