The revenue for a new feature today is something sure. While the cost associated with supporting such feature will be up to debate in the coming quarters.

As often it is the case, we are moving on a long vs short term trade-off space. And I don't think any experience will generalize

If you can afford that, with all the coordination costs that it comes from it, good.

An alternative is just to let the downstream service own the retry logic. Too many requests? Just error out as soon as possible.

Each team manages its budget and each other team adapts.

Because the value of writing are not the words on a piece of paper but the idea they convey.

Politicians speech are not worth listening too because they have a copywriter polish them?

Teacher assistant homeworks are not worth to do, because they are made by a TA and not by the course professor?

Of course there are writing as: "Hey ChatGPT write me a piece around coding with LLMs" and yeah, those are not worth reading.

But most of the writing is usually, these are the ideas, this is how the idea are structured together, now let's review them and then let's get a nice prose out of it.

I personally found V4-flash an amazing model and really hungry to try 4.1-flash

For software factories, cost is much more a concern that standard development workflow and using anthropic models is just a non starter

> tests should test behaviour and not structure.

Of what?

The whole idea of software architecture, and underlying of my messages, is to structure the code so that it is easy, but before easy, possible, to work at the right abstraction level.

Which allows to tests the behaviour of components and not their structure.

Trivial example, say your code read from a socket and manage the bytes with some CPU operations and write them to another socket. (You may recognise it is basically what a compressor do)

The way in which you manage read and write to the sockets will make dramatically simpler or much more difficult to write good tests.

If you adopt strategies like sans-io, you will see that the testing is almost trivial.

If all the logic sprawl up from the read syscall in a loop, you will notice how more challenging testing becomes.

---

To answer your question, the way I let LLMs write code is very DI (dependency injection) based.

A class never instantiates another class - all the dependencies are passed to the constructor. Including time. Including whatever DB iteraction.

The reason why I prefer this is that I can test each component at every level of abstraction. I don't have to. But I can.

My current approach is to force coverage higher than say 80% as default and then when a bug is discovered drill down to the components.

The way you test code cannot (and should not) be decoupled by the way in which you architect the code itself.

80%+ of effective testing is not in the testing framework but in the code architecture.

The author doesn't mention how the code is being architected and managed.

For what it is worth, I found that forcing agents on DI/hexagonal architecture and forcing a trivial coverage check is quite useful and produce overall good enough code with relative little effort

Only saying "LLM writing" is honestly lazy writing. Specifically what?

I get the glaring cases, I get the idea that if the prose is generated then maybe also the idea, I get the feeling when reading a complete LLM authored piece.

But that doesn't help the piece, because - beside those glaring cases - most writing today is a mix between authors ideas and LLM prose.

I am trying to understand in your view what are the parts that actually breaks and what kind of improvement we would need.

The idea is that legislator don't have the full context and don't know the impact of their work - so they welcome industry or matter experts. Which is quite reasonable. I would argue that the job of the legislator is to know what they are doing, but I can see it being hard for specific technical issues that really benefits from first hand experience.

I am not even particularly against the idea of donating money to make sure a particular issue is known to the public, so that the public can make an effective voting decision.

But all of this seems quite too much.

Companies have disproportionate amount of money to donate and much less synchronization issue that citizen.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49404457

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Do you have any example?

https://redbeardlab.gitbook.io/acem/essays/ambient-developme...

I basically wrote a small GitHub app and I simply create a GitHub issue, the bot read it, run an LLM loop and come up with a PR (or a design)

Then I simply approve the pr (or the design)

I find it much calmer and much more productive

"Unlimited" as in 8vCPU and then I am billed for it on consumption?

I think we can do much better.

The workflow of copy to chatgpt and getting feedback is just the first step, and honestly not that useful.

What I would love to see is a tool that makes my writing and thinking clearer.

Does this sentence makes sense? Does the conclusion I am reaching follows from what I am saying? Is this period useful or I am just repeating something I already said? Can I re-arrange my wording to make my point clear? Are my wording actually clear? Or am I not making sense?

Can I re-arrange my essay so that it is simpler to follow?

I force the code to be almost 100% dependency injection-able.

It simplifies a lot writing tests and getting the coverage. And I see the LLM being able to handle it very very well.

Good enough that I don't review it.

Granted, it is a personal project that I care only to the point that I want it to work. There are no money on the line. Nothing professional.

I believe that part of the secret is that I force CC to run the whole est suites after it change ANY file. Using hooks.

It makes iteration slower because it kinda forces it to go from green to green. Or better from red to less red (since we start in red).

But overall I am definitely happy with the results.

Again, personal projects. Not really professional code.

LLMs works on both translation steps. But you end up with an healthy amount of tests.

I tagged each tests with the id of the spec so I do get spec to test coverage as well.

Beside standard code coverage given by the tests.