[culi]

More interesting imo would be a measure of maintainability. I've heard that code that's largely written by AI is rarely remembered by the engineer that submitted even a week after merging

You're almost "locked in" to using more AI on top of it then. It may also make it harder to give estimates to non-technical staff on how long it'd take to make a change or implement a new feature

[chasd00]

I don’t know how to measure maintainability but the AI generated code I’ve seen in my projects is pretty plain vanilla standard patterns with comments. So less of a headache than a LOT of human code I’ve seen. Also, one thing the agents are good at, at least in my experience so far, is documenting existing code. This goes a long ways in maintenance, it’s not always perfect but as the saying goes documentation is like sex, when it’s good it’s great when it’s bad it’s better than nothing.

[brigandish]

Something I occasionally do is ask it to extensively comment a section of code for me, and to tell me what it thinks the intent of the code was, which takes a lot of cognitive load off of me. It means I'm in the loop without shutting off my brain, as I do have to read the code and understand it, so I find it a sweet spot of LLM use.

[ivanbalepin]

by "maintainability" and "rarely remembered by the engineer" i'm assuming the bigger concern (beyond commenting and sane code) is once everyone starts producing tons of code without looking - and reading(reviewing) code is, to me at least, much harder than writing - then all of this goes unchecked:

* subtle footguns

* hallucinations

* things that were poorly or incompletely expressed in the prompt and ended up implemented incorrectly

* poor performance or security bugs

other things (probably correctable by fine-tuning the prompt and the context):

* lots of redundancy

* comments that are insulting to the intelligence (e.g., "here we instantiate a class")

* ...

not to mention reduced human understanding of the system and where it might break or how this implementation is likely to behave. All of this will come back to bite during maintenance.

[nunez]

I find it funny that we, collectively, are now okay with comments in the code.

I remember the general consensus on this _not even two years ago_ being that the code should speak for itself and that comments harm more than help.

This matters less when agentic tools are doing the maintenance, I suppose, but the backslide in this practice is interesting.

[lbreakjai]

It's never been the consensus. As far back as I can remember, the wisdom was always to comment why the code does what it does if needed, and to avoid saying what the code does.

Saying that function "getUserByName" fetches a user by name is redundant. Saying that a certain method is called because of a quirk in a legacy system is important.

I regularly implement financial calculations. Not only do I leave comments everywhere, I tend to create a markdown file next to the function, to summarise and explain the context around the calculation. Just plain english, what it's supposed to do, the high level steps, etc.

[palmotea]

> I remember the general consensus on this _not even two years ago_ being that the code should speak for itself and that comments harm more than help.

If that was the consensus, it was wrong. There are valuable kinds of comments (whys, warnings, etc) that code can never say.

[fleabitdev]

I'd describe that as a trend, rather than a consensus.

It wasn't an entirely bad idea, because comments carry a high maintenance cost. They usually need to be rewritten when nearby code is edited, and they sometimes need to be rewritten when remote code is edited - a form of coupling which can't be checked by the compiler. It's easy to squander this high cost by writing comments which are more noise than signal.

However, there's plenty of useful information which can only be communicated using prose. "Avoid unnecessary comments" is a very good suggestion, but I think a lot of people over-corrected, distorting the message into "never write comments" or "comments are a code smell".

[smileysteve]

In context of the thread, that's because AI fixes the key problem with comments, because it maintains them when the code is updated.

[twelve40]

yeah that was weird, it was like a cult and some coworkers of mine were religiously hunting down every comment in other people's MR's, just kinda assumed that "no comments" is a hard rule. Very strange, i had to fight many battles for my sanity. There are many cases where you may want to explain why this is coded the way this is coded, not just how.

[rgblambda]

chasd00 did mention that this was for consulting projects, where presumably there's a handover to another team after a period of time. Maintainability was never a high priority for consultants.

But in general I agree with your point.

[smileysteve]

> engineer that submitted it

This is a poor metric as soon as you reach a scale where you've hired an additional engineer, where 10% annual employee turnover reflects > 1 employee, much less the scale where a layoff is possible.

It's also only a hope as soon as you have dependencies that you don't directly manage like community libraries.