In this regard, AI-generated code resembles an itinerant contributor, prone to violate the DRY-ness [don’t repeat yourself] of the repos visited.
So I guess previously people might first look inside their repo’s for examples of code they want to make, if they find and example they might import it instead of copy and pasting.
When using LLM generated code they (and the LLM) won’t be checking their repo for existing code so it ends up being a copy pasta soup.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
So I guess previously people might first look inside their repo’s for examples of code they want to make, if they find and example they might import it instead of copy and pasting.
When using LLM generated code they (and the LLM) won’t be checking their repo for existing code so it ends up being a copy pasta soup.
If you use AI to generate code, that should always be the first draft. You still have to edit it to make sure it’s good.
I totally agree, but I don’t hear any discussion about how to incentivize developers to do it.
If AI makes creating new code disproportionately easy, then I think DRY and refactoring will fall by the wayside.
How do we currently incentivize developers to keep it DRY? Code review still exists.