> If you're checking all the details for correct behavior, the effort involved converges to roughly the same thing.
Except it doesn't. It's much less to verify the tests.
> That's a valid argument, if you're ok tolerating a certain level of uncertainty about behavior that you haven't meticulously checked or tested.
I'm a realist, and know that I, like all other programmers, am fallible. Nobody writes perfect code. So yes, I'm ok tolerating a certain level of uncertainty about everybody's code, because there's no other choice.
I can get the same level of uncertainty in far less time with an LLM. That's what makes it great.
Except it doesn't. It's much less to verify the tests.
> That's a valid argument, if you're ok tolerating a certain level of uncertainty about behavior that you haven't meticulously checked or tested.
I'm a realist, and know that I, like all other programmers, am fallible. Nobody writes perfect code. So yes, I'm ok tolerating a certain level of uncertainty about everybody's code, because there's no other choice.
I can get the same level of uncertainty in far less time with an LLM. That's what makes it great.