[usefulcat]

Agreed 1000%. But that can be a lot of work; creating a good set of tests is nearly as much or often even more effort than implementing the thing being tested.

When LLMs can assist with writing useful tests before having seen any implementation, then I’ll be properly impressed.

[byzantinegene]

from experience, AI is bad at TDD. they can infer tests based on written code, but are bad at writing generalised test unless a clear requirement is given, so you the engineer is doing most of the work anyway.

[9rx]

My day job has me working on code that is split between two different programming languages. I'd say LLMs are pretty good at TDD in one of those languages and a hot mess in the other.

Which, funny enough, is a pretty good reflection of how I thought of the people writing in those languages before LLMs: One considers testing a complete afterthought and in the wild it is rare to find tests at all, and when they are present they often aren't good. Whereas the other brings testing as a first-class feature and most codebases I've seen generally contain fairly decent tests.

No doubt LLM training has picked up on that.