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

Mostly read like a normal article if you skip over the parts about using agents, which I did.

There could not possibly be a single thing in the world more boring than listening to someone describe using an AI agent. Might as well describe in arduous detail how you use a gas pump or a grocery store checkout.





I found the bit about using an agent to produce a minimal repro case interesting.

I'm very much on the side of "artisanally writing all code by hand" in terms of preference, but I have to admit that sometimes it puts me in a bind where there's stuff I wish I could do but don't because it's too time-consuming for the value provided. Isolating repro cases sometimes falls into that bucket.

This seems like a good use case for AI. Even if the resulting code isn't great, as long as it repros the issue and is fairly small, it's fine. It's eventually throwaway code anyway. At best, it will be harvested for a test case, but otherwise it's gone once the bug is fixed.


The part where Claude specifically tipped them off felt helpful to include. Stating that you used Claude to do a first pass just sounds like "I opened Vscode with highlighting to do a first pass" and that doesn't sound so relevant.

I might be too used to using coding agents in various parts of my workflow, and others are still getting acquainted, or others find it still much different than just another standard debugging tool.

And fwiw it's probably not Claude's fault that emoji fonts load this slow, though. Wtf Safari?


Maybe consider that other people are not as au fait with AI.

There are plenty of people learning to use AI and this article helps them.

A reasonable amount of repetition of "things you should know" is good.

The article is well written because you could skip the parts you knew, and learn from the parts you were unfamiliar with.


I think the problem is that the public is often being encouraged to use AI in ways that are not productive, or are misleading... At least at this point in time.

Nothing to do with the public: how is your comment relevant here?

The article explains using AI beneficially for a professional task.


You assume professionals are not members of the public.

Coding agent is a category of tools like, say, unit tests. If these days someone attached some random bits about how unit tests helped and how they didn't, everyone would directly agree that it does not help the main point of the article. However, because how relatively new these things are and how wide the spectrum of opinions are, and how it feels like "cheating", many feel the duty to also report the usage of them, even when talking about something completely different. I remember the times when every web developer was talking about how firebug helped them defeat a very elusive bug.

TL;DR: It will pass as AI agents become more boring (a good thing) and there's a standard workflow.




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

Search: