• nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      There’s an anecdote that comes up in software about people working on missile software not caring about memory leaks because it’s going to explode anyway before that becomes an issue.

      Who cares about bugs in your software if it’s a hobby project that’s going to blow up anyway.

      Also, including Claude doesn’t inherently mean vibe coded, it can be for writing tests, small components, or debugging.

      • skibidi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Tests should be written from requirements. Using LLMs to write tests after the code is written (probably also by LLMs) is a huge anti-pattern:

        The model looks at what the code is doing and writes tests that pass (or fail because they bungle the setup). What the model does not do, is understand what the code needs to do and write tests that ensure that functionality is present and correct.

        Tests are the thing that should get the most human investment because they anchor the project to its real-world requirements. You will have tons more confidence in your vibe coded appslop if you at least thought through the test cases and built those out first. Then, whatever the shortcomings of the AI codebase, if the tests pass you can know it is doing something right.

        • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Honestly, never been on a team that stuck to TDD. As you test your stuff, and understand whatever libraries and apis you’re calling you modify your implementation as you go.

          For public facing methods, especially ones called by customers, having pre agreed upon tests matter more but usually that’s at the integration test and system test level. I usually use AI for unit testing and read what was written. Tests end up being a lot of writing harnesses and setting up mocks that you delegate to the model and if there’s gaps or incorrect requirements, you change them.

          I would never let the agent define the code structure. It doesn’t understand business processes or what might need to be extended or we’re instead about.

          I’ve been doing software for a while, I know how to review code. I don’t vibe code, I let the model implement boilerplate and mapping functions while I do other stuff, like manual testing or talking with product. If done correctly, you can incorporate generative models into your workflows without fully handing over all control.

        • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I disagree about better code. Claude has been pretty bad at understanding external context and deriving why you’re doing something from the implementation. This can result in wonky structure that you need to fix, or at the very least tell Claude to redo over and over untill it looks clean and organized.

        • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          No matter how mad this makes people, its still true.

          What makes the code actually useful in most cases however, is enough understanding of the program to modify as its needed. That’s where LLMs fall flat. Even when the code works, its terrible at adjusting the code to fit a specific use case. Dont even get met started on usable documentation or maintenance.

        • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Wikipedia says:

          Vibe coding involves accepting AI-generated code without reviewing it,

          If you are using LLMs to write e.g. small components, then you are typically understanding the structure of the program, and reviewing it.

          • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            There’s nothing inherent to small components to suggest that you have to review them. If they’re small, it’s easier to tell yourself that the LLM probably got them right and you’re justified in not checking.

            • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Bro, if I don’t have to sit there for a half hour banging out code to map structure A on to structure B, I won’t. I’ll let someone else write it and spend 5 minutes to check that the code is clean and it works

        • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Vibe coding is you not reviewing what the model outputs. I read every line, often give feedback and tell the model about patterns I want to use.

          I probably write like 60-70% of the code myself.

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 days ago

    If I’m understanding this correctly, this is more valuable to underfunded military forces but not for the 3d printed ghost gun types. This doesn’t include propellent or explosives, which are the controlled parts. That’s awesome though.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    This is the same kind of thing the local Airsofters were building with an arduino and a few hats a decade ago. It’s not a functional “weapon” it’s just a hobby rocket with fins (that admittedly looks real fun to shoot)

    • Avicenna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      No you see, if arms companies own all the rights regarding distribution of 3D printer tech then it is a constitutional right to produce guns with printers, if not then it is terrorism.

      • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        GOP: “everything I don’t like terrorism” Us: “wasn’t it woke last year?” GOP: “this is completely different because I said so”

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 days ago

    Violence is only the last resort, but Americans should learn to make DIY weapons in case another civil war breaks out, because it is unlikely that Donald will concede power when the time comes.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      Let’s just remember the great lessons of history: Never cavalry charge a formed infantry, if the war involves Vietnam in ANY way, join the Vietnamese side, and halberds are the pinnacle of melee weapons.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    Damn and the Dept of Fucked Up Wars pays $1 to 1.3 million for a Tomahawk cruise missile. I am fully aware MANPADS are much smaller.

    The article below the DIY MANPADs was interesting too. MIT researchers used a 3D printer to build an electric motor!

    • Patrikvo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      A Tomahawk cruise missile is 5m tall, Printing that would take quite some time.