The wide range of different responses to this post illustrates an important point; we can't agree on how to use LLMs in software development, and are still discovering new things.
And in a couple of months we might be doing things completely differently because of some new model or new framework.
Have not had such big outage issues as what's described here, although I have noticed more stability issues lately. Is this worse while Europe is sleeping maybe?
Came back here to say I was wrong! I have been experimenting, and it is doable.
I have been experimenting with setting up a scraping pipeline with LLM enrichment since I wrote the comment above, and have very positive results so far. :)
But LLMs themselves are literally not going away, I think that's the point. Once a model is trained and let out into the open for free download, it's there, and can be used by anyone - and it's only going to get cheaper and easier.
As a Norwegian, yeah you're not wrong. We have a lot of challenges to overcome as the oil age is coming to an inevitable end, although there are many here tho refuse to see the writing on the wall.
I used to be "anti Tesla", then I tried one, and now I own one.
Teslas are disruptive - they're not what you expect of cars. I will never look the same at a car again. Tell this to anyone who doesn't understand, and they simply won't understand what you're going on about.
Over a year in; driving my Model X still makes me smile.
How to create readable code that explains itself should have more focus. It's not just about naming classes, methods and variables, but also about structuring your code. It's quite possible to create a method with the perfect name that is over nine thousand lines long and difficult to understand.
This can be very subjective, but code complexity metrics can help identify problem areas. I find that areas with high complexity often benefit from refactoring into smaller pieces making it more readable and self explanatory.
If you can't structure your code to explain itself, perhaps commenting isn't such a bad idea, at least it would be a record of your thoughts at the time, until someone else comes a long and hopefully cleans it up.
> Okay, I have to question this. Why is a browser vendor spending precious time and money adding a mailbox to their browser?
Because Jon von Tetzchner (founder of Opera and Vivaldi) thinks having it in the browser is superior to having it as a separate app. It used to be like this in Opera as well. His goal is to provide an application with more value than just the stripped down browsers you see these days.
> I always wondered why, for the longest time, they thought competing with Chrome and Firefox was a good idea
Because Jon von Tetzschner was and is passionate about building a good browser, and didn't really care that the odds were (are?) against him.
But when Opera is brought up, the focus is always on the Desktop browser. However, the money was always in devices - Opera has traditionally been really big on a plethora of devices.
Also, Opera both on desktop and mobile, has long been big in markets other than the US, especially eastern Europe.
From experience, it's amazingly easy to break something unintentionally when you're making changes, and even with a relatively small codebase it quickly becomes difficult to keep everything in your head.
I'm not an advocate of TDD though, and I agree that more effort should be put into how to test.
Somewhere, this software sits in a source code repository. Someone planned it, wrote it, reviewed it and approved it. Where are these people, and why are they not speaking up? Why have there not been any whistleblowing on this, it's huge?!
And in a couple of months we might be doing things completely differently because of some new model or new framework.
That's really cool.