Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

More likely: "inscrutably buggy"

It looks to you like it should work, but it doesn't, and you can't figure out why.

That's not "mostly working," that's a frustrating waste of time. It's hard enough to notice when you accidentally swap `i` and `j` -- why would you want to make your life even more miserable by spending your time finding all of the instances where a pattern matching robot has done something similar in an unfamiliar block?

And if you do happen to get "mostly working" code, but only want it to stay together long enough for you to fundraise, you're basically stating that you plan on foisting this technical debt onto the poor sod you happen to hire.

Attitudes like yours are the reason this dogpile scares me.



If I understand your argument correctly, it's that GitHub Copilot does not produce functioning code, yes?

If that's the case, I agree with your assessment, that GitHub Copilot isn't delivering on its promise and I would not be using it.

My understanding, however, was the GitHub Copilot does produce functioning code. If you're saying, as I think you are, "No, GitHub is lying about Copilot." I find that claim fascinating (How the hell did we get to the point where a software company could release a product that literally does not do even the most basic version of what it says it does, and only a few people notice?), but I'd need more specific information from you before I'd believe it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: