| I think what that young guy actually did was practice for the next job application as "vibe programmer / Claude". Joke. I think he did "vibe" coding, but (may be) on a piece of code that doesn't throw errors. Code assistance then doesn't know/understand what went wrong - more context would help. BUT! I have had an logical problem once that I couldn't resolve with my quarter-pounder only. So I used cgpt and asked to give it to me. And, you guessed, it didn't work out. I did not really expect it to work out, but at least give me the logical structure as the worst case. So I asked and got garbage. So I asked again, again, again - more context than the context I gave was out of reach, as I needed the logical structure firstly to be able to comprehend it myself and to add further context. Then, at some point, I got something delivered that looked promising from the perspective of logical structure. So I took this and formulated a new prompt - and. Yes! You guessed it. It didn't work out in code. So, I did a quick truth table of expectations, formulated the prompt with the given logical structure and truth table and told assistant to check on the given code... AAA AND! You guessed it. I sent 10 times the same prompt "here truth table, here code, ....". I noticed, the code changed more or less each time, with introduction of newish loops and methods and and and.. And somewhen then, it worked flawless out of nothing. Sometimes it makes sense just to write "it doesn't work out": - in case one doesn't know how to formulate the actual problem, because it's out of scope. It's not the same as not being able to program, but it may be just to difficult to grasp the logic/algorithms with own brain (even own/custom one) - to get alternative suggestions which may even be better than earlier suggested ones. So, as long I don't know why this young guy did what he did, as long I can't judge what he did. May be he is like me - is able to code, but has big problems to sustain that knowledge and skill, because of Claude!!!!! |