Hear hear! These are well spoken facts.

And indeed here.

And surprisingly...here too.

For all its faults, I too find myself using it constantly. Mainly because it allows me the freedom to "try it and see" for certain design decisions or to apply a blanket refactoring to old code bases that no other refactoring tool could possibly do. Or to just crank out scripts that technically work and get you the parsed results you need but you'd never try to maintain beyond the immediate need.

Those, and others, are the reasons I still use it daily...increasingly so. I can have it bang out that script to do "whatever" is needed at the time (usually data analytics or dataset transforms or whatever). Scripts I might not have ever written on my own because it would just take too long and so instead of digging deeper into "whatever" at the time to cross check and validate assumptions, I might have just assumed.

This tooling allows me to do things I wouldn't have before. It allows me to try patterns and see how they play out without any real fear of wasting my time because it's being done FAR quicker than I would have. And in the end, I have a set of options to consider rather than just picking something up front and pushing through the grind to make it the chosen way.

But pointing it to a bug and blindly submitting that trash output...ZERO chance. Even if it works, and honestly, often it does, it's almost ALWAYS complete trash code. I can bound that trash output with more specific prompts, yes. And this does work reasonably well...but you pretty quickly get to a point where you've spent about as much time crafting those fancy prompts in that case as you might have spent just writing the code yourself.

The more specific and structured you want the output, the longer it takes to get it. It can be fast or right, but not both.

Are you talking about CVE? Looking back it seems like it but if so, you might be on the wrong forum here. For reference, they did define these terms.

National Vulnerability Database (NVD)
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA)
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV)

Which I think is fair. But they didn't bother with NIST (I assume you did know that one) or CVE cause, I dunno, they're pretty damn common place...certainly on this site. There's a point where you can assume people in your audience know some level of detail about the topic you're presenting to them. And CVE, in my opinion (IMO), certainly fits that.

Tell me you can't read without telling me you can't read.

To be clear...PoGo is *not* free. Absolutely, positively, NOT free. ;) Yeah, you're still the product for sure...but you pay dearly for that privilege. I may or may not have an addicted spouse, so I may or may not know.

(Yes, you *can* play for free...or could at one time...but you're entirely ineffective and capped at what you can actually do to the point of being worthless.)

I contend just the opposite. I'd be terrified to watch someone that doesn't know how to code use claude code for the very reasons you mentioned. It's going to do amazing stuff most of the time and really stupid stuff periodically. To pick up on that stupid stuff, knowing how to code and conscientiously reviewing changes with that background knowledge is the only way to get those impressive results.

Ah, if only that were true. Sadly, there are people that simply refuse to acknowledge the superior experience of using the Apple ecosystem across phones, watches, laptops, desktops, etc., etc. My wife and kids being among those stubborn hold outs with arms crossed and brows furrowed yammering on and on about elitist this or snobby that...whatever. ;)

Yes, yes, I'm JOKING! Please no flames. I mean...the situation I described is real enough, but c'mon, can't we all just get along and inter-operate!? LOL

It saddens me to hear this. Last time I needed to do this was just a few months ago. It's relatively common to be honest.

I was hiking along the ridge of the white mountains. Overnight some fellow hikers had taken some amazing shots of the milky way. Sure we could have exchanged e-mail addresses or numbers and then waited until we all got back down a few days later where we once again had cell coverage and then hoped they remember and/or bother to send to you so you could share that experience with others.

Or, as luck would have it, they happened to be using an iPhone as was I and we just airdropped right there.

It's really not a far fetched idea. I'm sure I'm in that situation at least 2 or 3 times each year and I'm sure in the absence of said functionality, there are photos and memories I would have long since forgotten.

End of the world? Certainly not. Clearly first world problems here. But you can't suggest it's a complete non-issue either. And although you didn't explicitly say it was a non-issue, it's easy to infer that sentiment from your statement. If that wasn't your intent, then fair enough I suppose. But even if that's the case, I suspect there are plenty of other people who, like me, took it that way and I figured I'd offer a counterpoint.

You're feeding the trolls...don't feed the trolls. ROFL!

Genuinely great conversation here. Thanks for that! Been a while...thus why I don't usually post. ;)

I just wrote up a slightly different take on the exact same situation you described. As a fellow "advanced" gray beard with decades of experience and broad knowledge of all the various "cool architectures du jour" that have popped up and gone away in that time, I feel that I am (as you are) fully qualified in writing code that others consider to be of "superior" quality.

The hands of such a person, these tools can build our knowledge. But only because we have all these learned system architectures upon which we can base our read and understanding of whatever new thing we're looking at.

Yeah, in a way we're "novices" in that field, but dude...we're novices with a vast knowledge library to build upon. Even without these tools, we can dive into an area we're entirely unfamiliar with and come up to full competency FAR faster than most true "novices".

The novices of concern here and being referred to by the author you replied to are those that aren't yet able to, as you wrote, "review the tests the LLM had written and direct it to improve them" in the same way you and I can. *Those* are the novices I am / we are concerned about never advancing beyond "novice" level.

Now...what we do not know is the long term playout of this. There was a time, I'm sure because I was there as I suspect you were as well, where higher level compilers were considered suspect. I've had to review the assembly they spit out to find floating point bugs I *knew* weren't in my code. But now? In 2026? I haven't reviewed compiler output in at least 2 decades, maybe almost 3...certainly not to the extent I was 4 decades ago when C compilers for the 65816 were first coming out, for example...

Is that where we are now in this genAI spool up? Perhaps. Perhaps the newbies now that seem like novices because they don't know the details of the underlying libraries and APIs like the back of their hand are just the new users of the new "compilers" and at some point in the future they're all going to look back and say "remember when we used to have to write actual code and memorize APIs and read through piles of documentation....OMG things were so painful back then".

That's what I'm hoping is happening now. I suspect it's more of that than what some are claiming that "software is doomed" and "we're going to lose all experienced coders". Nah...I suspect we're just changing the type of coder that's going to be considered "experienced" and the domain we're going to consider them experienced in.

You're right, but....

I mean, yes, you're right in that a novice using AI will very likely never advance much beyond being a novice. Which sucks and I don't have any answers for that yet. It's a HUGE looming issue and even my younger son is caught up in this mess trying to find a job when companies have absolutely put the brakes on hiring "novices" out of school (not even sure I'd call him a novice as he's quite competent but apparently "right out of school" immediately removes you from consideration at most places as far as I can tell).

But here's the tricky part...the part that's making this whole problem worse by acting as a feedback loop of sorts. When these tools are used by experienced system architects, coders, technical writers, etc., (all of which I, perhaps egotistically, consider myself as) they can be made to do incredible things very quickly and very completely in a way that a human isn't going to be able to slog through in days much less the minutes it takes these tools to crank it out.

And interns? I've been offered "another intern" just about every year for the last 10 years. But in the last 2 years, I've turned them down. I just do not need them anymore. But more than that, I enjoy getting that work done myself now because it's an opportunity to experiment with all these new tools.

And that's the spiraling feedback loop of destruction, unfortunately. It's not just that we don't "need" junior coders. That's true, but if the process of coming up to speed on all this new tech wasn't so interesting to all the gray beards like me, we'd be more than happy to being on junior coders and spool them up on this instead. But that's not the case... I haven't seen interesting new tech that actually got me truly excited about software and hardware in *decades*. Literally...*decades* of mediocre or (for sure) declining quality and the flattening of designs and architectures had left me 100% ready to walk away and just go start farming or something.

But then THIS shows up!? Are you kidding me! And you want me to let all the newbies play around with it and leave me behind? I mean, yeah, we probably *should* let that happen but I can't. Coding is just too much fun again and that's what got us all into this decades ago.

"prety" I can ignore. "rane" I cannot. ;)

Joking aside, my assumption is that Trump's position on Greenland is exactly that same statement as you made. We do pretty much have free reign but so does everyone else and that's the sticking point...I think. I usually try to find some hidden agenda because every slimy political move is slimy, but this one, at least to my naive self, seems pretty straightforward. "We" have an interest in limiting how closely we let "enemies" get to our borders with established bases and working condition and access to resources.

Police "discretion" already does that. Everywhere. All the time. At every level.

TFS doesn't even mention Java in its "anyone familiar with" list, but Java streams have been around since 2014 and are much a more disciplined and formal implementation of a very similar concept of chaining operations together like this. I'd call this Python pipe operator nothing more than syntactic sugar. Seriously, honest question...does it actually do anything functional other than change the *syntax* of how you chain calls together?

Feels a little bit like moving away from legacy environments and starting fresh with [ insert more modern, secure, pattern-focused paradigm/language ] is a somehow more accurate summary to me.

Phew....I was starting to wonder if I was the one that had misread it cause everyone seemed to be taking it seriously.

Also...1343!? Holy shit!