• Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s awesome, and I would probably would find those tools useful.

    Code generators have existed for a long time, but they are usually free. These tools actually costs a lot of money, cost way more to generate code this way than the traditional way.

    So idk if it would be worth it once the venture capitalist money dries up.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s fair. I don’t know if I will ever pay my own money for it, but if my company will, I’ll use it where it fits.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      What are these code generators that have existed for a long time?

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Neither of those seem similar to GitHub copilot other than that they can reduce keystrokes for some common tasks. The actual applicability of them seems narrow. Frequently I use GitHub copilot for “implement this function based on this doc comment I wrote” or “write docs for this class/function”. It’s the natural language component that makes the LLM approach useful.

          • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            There is also auto doc generators.

            I think what you’re specifically referring to is accessibility or ease of use. For someone unfamiliar with those tools, I can see the appeal.

            Personally, as a software dev, I think it’s just very inefficient way to accomplish this goal. LLMs consume vastly more resources than a simple script. So I wouldn’t use it, especially if I’m paying real money for it.