Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I would throw the entire docs out and write it from scratch in your own words. I get that we live in an era where the machine writes most/all of the code, and I can accept that. What I need, to even consider using and extending this project, is some understanding of what part of the design is yours and what part is accident by Claude. I can't get that from reading Claudese.
>>I get that we live in an era where the machine writes most/all of the code

Only on the Internet is this true, not in real life. I cannot and do not trust any of these things to do a proper job because they have not in any situation succeeded in any job I've given them. And no company I deal with claims otherwise

Sadly there seems to be no point in arguing online though.

- You need to have a mental model to grow an idea

- When a pattern is known you can use a library!

- When a pattern is not known AI will make stuff up

No matter how "good" coding with an AI will become there is no way you get around learning, having someone understand what's going on and take responsibility.

I'm fine with formal checking and fuzzing or getting hints where a bug might come from - but these are iterations on tools we used before like a debugger, strict types, functional programming and well fuzzing.

I tried to have an AI iterate on a step i don't fully understand yet and i always regretted it. Highly interconnected projects will grind to a halt until you do learn.

You can check with people doing highly specced software in the medical domain that even with very good specs there is ambiguity in natural language thus it can never be the source of reliable and manageable software.

However - i read about some smart guys in the 40s or so encountering the need for a formal language to tell a computer what to do with 0 ambiguity and i think they called it a "programming language"

Right I feel like they just got to a point where they can reliably write individual functions with direction. Every time I've tried to use them consistently I feel like I just end up spinning wheels from them doing things that mostly work until it crashes and burns or just has straight up missing things or half truths. Skill issue or not it doesn't work for me.

Still glad I basically never have to debug a build issue or memory error again though

If the Code is bad, you can tell it to fix it to match your expectations —only at the edges, are you going to have to spell it out.

Lack of documentation used to be a running joke.

The goose_spec.txt in 2019 would be "goose is like c and rust only with syntax like array{;}[] btw it uses a small amount of stacks instead of malloc."0 10klocs.

Now, we make sure the AI leaves documentation so it can figure out what it was doing earlier.

A local model a few generations and many weights behind newest Claude can implement my novel algorithms and write the documentation I wouldn't.

Yes, many times it does dumb CS for kindergarten mistakes but it only has to work towards the optimum every once in a while.

That's like me with violins!
loading story #50227592
loading story #50228110
The tools have a learning curve. You can get extreme amounts of value out of them but you have to learn how to use them. Many tools are this way.

It might make sense to learn now, before everyone expects that you be an expert with this tool in order to do your job. On the other hand perhaps they will be easier to learn if you wait.

There is an incredible amount of nuance to be had in using LLMs and we reached the stage, probably only in the last few weeks where all the pieces have fallen into place such that if you are skilled at using the LLMs just about all of the previous problems with them can now be easily mitigated. If you learn how. There is a lot to learn.

loading story #50230996
loading story #50230879
it's definitely true in real life. i think there is actually a massive skill gap in using them effectively.
I just wrote a clean plugin in Rust. I don't know rust. It took work to avoid, remove, and replace slop, avoid spurious and pointless tests, etc. It wasn't "fire and forget". but it wrote the code, the code has been made clean, integrates well with existing project structure and does what it's supposed to. I spent a day or two on it, but had I attempted to write it from scratch, even knowing rust, it easily would have taken me longer.

Considering that I don't know rust at all, it's awesome.

{"deleted":true,"id":50234754,"parent":50227266,"time":1792953991,"type":"comment"}
Sounds like a skill issue.
This product is proof that you apparently either don't know how to use AI, haven't used it within the last 3 months, or don't know what you're talking about.
loading story #50234794
I can see that you only work with true scotsmen, but the machine really does write most of the code now, at least from a pure numbers perspective.
Eh, I think the tutorial is pretty readable? It's concise enough.

With the tutorial, the summary also makes more sense. I have not read the other parts yet, but so far I like what I see.

All is in pretty good taste, and I like what I've seen so far. I do not care if the author himself came up with the idea, or if AI came up with it and the author approved.

I do not understand why you "have to" know this to make use of it. You can judge ideas independently of where they came from (and you should).

loading story #50232103
loading story #50235564
This is actually a really good point that I think many people fail to understand these days!
100%

Couldn’t make it more than a few sentences in before the bile started to build up in the back of my throat and I had to back out. It’s shocking to me that people knowingly post unedited Claude-slop drivel and are seemingly unashamed about it. In 2026, it seems the main role of technical humans should be to act as a barrier between our agents’ output and other humans.

loading story #50237470
The version of the documentation which I would very much like to see would be a Literate Programming version where all the code is explained from the ground up.

Apparently, this can actually assist the LLM:

https://silly.business/blog/we-should-revisit-literate-progr...

as discussed here previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47300747

That's a great idea. I wonder if any major library (or language) has attempted a version their site in that style.

I'd love to experiment with this myself.

I've been trying to collect Literate Programs collected as books at:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/21394355-william-adams...

Note that ICC, a C compiler, is one:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/522102.Retargetable_C_Co...

Note that one can look through projects tagged as Literate Programming by using the topics view:

https://github.com/topics/literate-programming

might be there's something useful there.

loading story #50233175
loading story #50235865
Once a week, I tell Antigravity (3.8-flash) to rewrite every code comment and documentation that was changed in the past week. Neither GPT nor Claude can write like a human.
loading story #50228049
We as a society have to cut this low effort commenting out. The documentation is perfectly comprehensible. What action would you take differently if a given feature were implemented by Claude, or a human?
loading story #50226664
loading story #50226351
loading story #50226417
loading story #50229406
loading story #50229603
loading story #50228305
loading story #50231134
loading story #50228279
loading story #50227316
I do not think you know who this guy is