[ModernMech]

> And API is just a set of functions and types that determine an interface.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to janky APIs. When you say "just" you're doing the same thing the LLM does - you're removing all the nuance and complexity from the activity.

For example, your concept of an API as just a set of functions does not consider how the API changes over time. Library authors who take this into account will have a better time evolving the library API. Library authors who don't might write themselves into a corner, which might force some sort of API version schism which causes half the API to be nice while the other half has questionable decisions, causing perpetual confusion and frustration with users for decades.

The LLM hallucinating some nice looking function calls doesn't really take any of that into account.

[palmotea]

>> And API is just a set of functions and types that determine an interface.

> That's the kind of thinking that leads to janky APIs. When you say "just" you're doing the same thing the LLM does - you're removing all the nuance and complexity from the activity.

I wonder if that kind of thinking is a component of the difference between LLM fans and LLM skeptics. If the programmer who is not sensitive to "nuance and complexity" gets something lacking it from an LLM, they're happy today. A programmer who is sensitive to "nuance and complexity" would be unhappy with the same response.