1145
AI Coding Is Massively Overhyped, Report Finds
(futurism.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
1145 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
76310 readers
1598 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This, I think, is a very bad part of the problem and shouldn't be happening regardless
It shouldn't, but it does. The person who writes the code cares more about its correctness, so I trust them to write better tests.
I absolutely don't. Since we're talking about bad cases anyway, I don't trust a developer to be diligent in finding bugs in their code more than I believe they will try to make all the tests pass. And it's easier and better for the ego to achieve that if you write shit tests that only cover cases that you know will work.
Unit tests aren't intended to find bugs, they're intended to prove correctness. There should be a separate QA process for finding bugs, which involves integration testing. When QA inevitably finds a bug, the unit tests get updated with that case (and any similar cases).
And that's what code reviews are for. If your tests don't sufficiently cover the logic, the change should be rejected until they do. It's a lot easier to verify the tests cover the logic if the tests are submitted w/ the logic changes.