[jf22]

The code I have AI generate matches the production quality code I've shipped throughout my career. SOLID code, no security flaws, unit-tested, documented, commented, fast, secure, composable vs inheritable, no magic strings, etc etc etc.

>You literally can't put enough context into a prompt to have it write the exact code you'd need in every case.

Yes you can. I do this every day.

[dartos]

I just can’t believe you. Nothing I’ve seen indicates that is possible right now.

Would you be willing to share your code and your workflow?

> >You literally can't put enough context into a prompt to have it write the exact code you'd need in every case. Yes you can. I do this every day.

It hasn’t been possible for maths and isn’t for programming.

I’ll defer to Dijkstra on this “foolishness”

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667...

[jf22]

One day it wasn't possible to fly in the air either and I'm sure was a person who wrote an article about that as well.

[dartos]

So you’re not willing to share anything?

Just anecdotes and platitudes?

Not even some reasoning?

Also note that I chose my words carefully when I said “Nothing I’ve seen indicates that is possible right now.”

I used “right now” to not rule out future possibilities.

[jf22]

I'm not here to prove anything to you, just to tell my story and share.

What do you want me to do, give you access to my works git repo?

[dartos]

I asked if you would be willing to share your work and workflow.

You could say nothing. You could just say “I can’t, it’s for my job, but my workflow looks like this…” or something.

You could say you’re not comfortable sharing.

You could share a snippet and how you reached that result… idk anything.

But instead you went for some weird statement about flying and people writing articles.

Didn’t respond to any points in Dijkstra’s essay, just some platitudes.