[nzach]

> It seems to me that existing good practices continue to work well. I haven't seen any radically new approaches to software design and development that only work with LLMs and wouldn't work without them.

I've been thinking about it lately and I think you are right. LLMs haven't changed what is 'good software'. But they changed some proxies I used to have for what is 'good software'.

In the past I've always loved projects that had good documentation, and many times I've used this metric to select a project/library to use. But LLMs transformed something that was (IMHO) a good indicator for "care"/"software quality" into something that is becoming irrelevant (see Goodhart's law).

[monsieurbanana]

I'm not sure llms produce good documentation. I'm open to hear more opinions on this, my feeling is that the documentation of llm-heavy projects is a bit too verbose, a bit off-target, sometimes completely irrelevant, very repetitive.

Not terrible, but I'll just point my own llm to it instead of reading it myself like I would for an actual great documentation

[nzach]

If you are willing to point your LLM to the docs instead of actually reading it why not skip it and send your LLM directly to the source code? That is what I've been doing recently, and that is why recently good documentation became less important for me.