I recently argued with someone -- not here! -- when he was enthusiastic about AI generating code. Poof, no programmers, he said. What about bugs, I asked? Human-generated code has bugs, so will AI coding, since it will be trained on ... human coding. No problem he said, people will check the AI generated code.
So they won't be programmers, I said, but they'll be good at desk checking code? And reading code will replace humans designing it and testing it? And that's more efficient than human coders? And AI code will likely not have comments/documentation. Won't that be fun debugging/maintaining/enhancing. What could go wrong? AI coding assistant, sure. AI programmers, maybe not (yet?). Bob Bridges<robhbrid...@gmail.com> said: To rant on a related subject, I once worked at a company that instituted code reviews; a new program would be gone over by a half-dozen coworkers to be sure it adhered to local standards. This sort of thing is always painful to the coder, and nevertheless (I admit reluctantly) can have considerable value if done right. One problem I had with it, though, is that the standards we created for ourselves admitted that there are times when exceptions should be made for special cases, and yet when those cases arose no exceptions were ever allowed; the team invariably flinched, leaned back in their seats and said "no, that's not according to our standards". -- Gabriel Goldberg, Computers and Publishing, Inc. g...@gabegold.com 3401 Silver Maple Place, Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 204-0433 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gabegold Twitter: GabeG0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
