synthc

Yeah also different vendors have different limitations.

I would love if the Jetbrains IDE's got really good agent integration, all their code analysis could have amazing synergy with LLM's, Unfortunatly for now I disabled all AI features as it was slowing my IDE (JetBrains) to a crawl.

Most go codebases I have seen would benefit from using a framework TBH.

Sure, not using a framework is nice for a small and simple service.

When you have multiple devs working on a large codebase over the timespan of years, a 'heavy' framework is highly prefereable over everyone reinventing the wheel.

I gave it a weird and convoluted code snippet, and asked an LLM to step through the execution and trace the value of the variables at each step.

It was completely correct and I realized LLM are capable of generalizing beyond their training sets

`uv agent` and `bun agent` in 3....2.....1....

Very hit or miss.

Stack: go, python Team size: 8 Experience, mixed.

I'm using a code review agent which sometimes catches a critical big humans miss, so that is very useful.

Using it to get to know a code base is also very useful. A question like 'which functions touch this table' or 'describe the flow of this API endpoint' are usually answered correctly. This is a huge time saver when I need to work on a code base i'm less familiar with.

For coding, agents are fine for simple straightforward tasks, but I find the tools are very myopic: they prefer very local changes (adding new helper functions all over the place, even when such helpers already exist)

For harder problems I find agents get stuck in loops, and coming up with the right prompts and guardrails can be slower than just writing the code.

I also hates how slow and unpredictable the agents can be. At times it feels like gambling. Will the agents actually fix my tests, or fuck up the code base? Who knows, let's check in 5 minutes.

IMO the worst thing is that juniors can now come up with large change sets, that seem good at a glance but then turn out to be fundamentally flawed, and it takes tons of time to review

They made their home a concentration camp, no need for railroad cars this time...

I'm thinking of using it to replace an analytics pipeline at my job, which now uses expensive batch jobs. If the tech is solid, we would have instant and incremental updates, instead of recomputing everything every X hours. This would simplify things a lot.

I think Materialize offers a similar product, but last I checked it was only available as a SaaS solution.

I hope to do a proof of concept soon, to compare both solutions

Does anyone have experience with RisingWave in production? It seems like an interesting product but I can't find any experience reports.

User name almost checks out

Classic Dutch: “We need this talent… but financially, it is impossible to support them,”

you get runtime errors with a long JVM stacktrace

Immutability removes so much accidental complexity, it makes whole classes of mistakes dissapear. I'd also take immutability over types.

Clojure sort of guides you to simplicity, building everything out of functions and simple datastructures has big advantages when testing and reasoning about code.

I do find that in larger code bases, Clojure lack of types causes friction (spec is just a bandaid, not a fix).

There are languages with immutability and types (like Haskell), but these don't have the get-shit-done factor I seek.

For me it just speeds up learning the language, so I think i'd become fluent faster.

I do thoroughly review of the the LLM answers, and hardly every directly copy paste answer, so I feel this way I still learn the language.

about as much as I trust StackOverflow answers