It’s not radioactive waste, it’s code. You can read it, write it, change it. Just like any legacy codebase it’s full of shit, and maintaining means addressing the specific issues.
This whole debacle is showing that people fundamentally misunderstand how code works. They are trying to declare code good or code bad because of some silly heuristics like ai/not-ai, as if it wasn’t literal lines of text which you can read before you form an opinion and make a fool of yourself.
Don’t let perfect stop you from achieving good.
It’s not radioactive waste, it’s code. You can read it, write it, change it. Just like any legacy codebase it’s full of shit, and maintaining means addressing the specific issues.
This whole debacle is showing that people fundamentally misunderstand how code works. They are trying to declare code good or code bad because of some silly heuristics like ai/not-ai, as if it wasn’t literal lines of text which you can read before you form an opinion and make a fool of yourself.
Good code has always been about simplicity, taste, and understanding.
If a human provides understanding and taste, they can elevate AI code to be good.
Likewise if an AI isn’t well guided it won’t understand, has no taste, and will generate overly complex code. AKA Slop.
Exactly. And a commit is a commit. Unless it’s 10Kloc in one go you can just read what’s in it and decide for yourself.
At my previous job we used to jokingly (?) tell our engineering manager “no commits, no opinions” well I think it’s kinda like that.