[averageRoyalty]

I read these sort of comments every so often and I do not understand them. You are in a sea of people telling you that they are developing software much quicker which ticks the required boxes. I understand that for some reason this isn't the case for your work flow, but obviously it has a lot more value for others.

If you are a chairmaker and everyone gains access to a machine that can spit out all the chair components but sometimes only spits out 3 legs or makes a mistake on the backs, you might find it pointless. Maybe it can't do all the nice artisan styles you can do. But you can be confident others will take advantage of this chair machine, work around the issues and drive the price down from $20 per chair to $2 per chair. In 24 months, you won't be able to sell enough of your chairs any more.

[on_the_train]

> You are in a sea of people telling you that they are developing software much quicker which ticks the required boxes

But that's exactly not the case. Everyone is wondering what tf this is supposed to be for. People are vehemently against this tech, and yet it gets shoved down our throats although it's prohibitively expensive.

Coding should be among the easiest problems to tackle, yet none of the big models can write basic "real" code. They break when things get more complex than pong. And they can't even write a single proper function with modern c++ templating stuff for example.

[Agingcoder]

They can actually - I thought they couldn’t , but the latest ones can, much to my surprise.

I changed my mind after playing with cursor 2 ( cursor 1 had lasted all of 10 mins), which actually wrote a full blown app with documentation, tests , coverage, ci/cd, etc. I was able to have it find a bug I encountered when using the app - it literally ran the code, inserted extra logs, grepped the logs , found the bug and fixed it.

[pton_xd]

> And they can't even write a single proper function with modern c++ templating stuff for example.

That's just not true. ChatGPT 4 could explain template concepts lucidly but would always bungle the implementation. Recent models are generally very strong at generating templated code, even if its fairly complex.

If you really get out into the weeds with things like ADL edge cases or static initialization issues they'll still go off the rails and start suggesting nonsense though.

[margorczynski]

> Coding should be among the easiest problems to tackle, yet none of the big models can write basic "real" code. They break when things get more complex than pong. And they can't even write a single proper function with modern c++ templating stuff for example.

This is simply false and ignorant

[on_the_train]

It's not, I tried just a week ago with all the popular models. When things get non trivial with fold expressions etc, they fail completely

[throwaway31131]

Maybe, or maybe the size of the chair market grows because with $2 chairs more buyers enter. The high end is roughly unaffected because they were never going to buy a low end chair.