As much as I agree with this article, I feel that there's a logical flaw here. The author admits that it's difficult to measure bad code - but continues with the assertion that it exists. If the only negative to "bad code" is that it's difficult to maintain once the author has left or difficult to refactor, then the question really is whether or not LLMs will continue to be able to maintain their spaghetti code.
Just because it's bad for a human doesn't necessarily mean everything will fall apart - unless a human has to maintain it unaided.
dwedge · · focus · HN ↗
Just because it's bad for a human doesn't necessarily mean everything will fall apart - unless a human has to maintain it unaided.
vividfrier · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]