Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Personally, one thing I like about Claude is that before, specifications kept changing through verbal explanations. Now, with Claude, everything is communicated in writing, so there's no room for shifting blame.
Does this kind of difference vary depending on the engineering organization?
by jdw64 - It is genuinely awful to work with people who do this. I lose all respect for such people immediately because what are you even providing to the picture in that case?by bigstrat2003
- I always use AI to understand big diffs.
And you can always reject a PR, bro with "I don't understand it to approve it. Maybe make it smaller or documents it better?" Etc
I've had code approvers who gave me tons of crap, even over smaller edits. You too can be that kind of reviewer!
by newsomix9xl - Oh, this is advertising blogspam :(by pjc50
- IMO it depends on the company. If everyone in the company has to provide a lot of PRS etc. you have to stop care about the quality and just get the paycheck. The CEO decided not you. (Of course not when the product may charm ppl etc.)by mydreamof
- I read the first two paragraphs and the post presumably criticising folks for using AI is so clearly written by AI. It's got all the tell tail claude-isms in it.
Analogies about 'students and exams' that don't quite fit. The sentences ending in artificially punchy short phrases. The 'correction' and dash-as-reveal in "they can't answer it - no one can".
It's not good, or a compelling read, and I think it's lazy not to have swept through and fixed these things.
by zknill