Working professionals are, if at all competent to be committing code to a professional code base, entirely capable of writing their own commit messages.

If they can't write the commit message, they can't sufficiently explain in writing the commit they just made to anyone. So, they should not be working professionally on a code base.

If they are capable of writing the commit message with their own understanding in their own words, but they choose not to communicate their understanding in the commit message? Also disqualifying, they should not be working professionally on a code base. Human communication is essential to this work.

That this is a controversial position, is a clear sign of the Slopocalypse.

I write my own shell scripts and ruby on rails, but I ask Claude to create branches, manage commits, do all the force pushed to update it all, keep my local copy up to date, do all the things with the git origin etc. So Claude shows up as a contributor but didn’t do any of the work.

I’m fine with that though because I’ve destroyed git history so many times, or messed up commits and broken everything, or needed to do some complex invert paths thing. It’s just better to leave all that to Claude.

If you have a couple of hours, and can stomach the AI art, then this video covers a lot of the niceties of C++:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fGB-hjc2Gc

My theory is that they came up with the concept of operator overloading (or copied it elsewhere and were exited) and decided the best place to demonstrate and sell the concept is in the most used console input and output standard functions.

Edit: I realize my contempt for this decision is not evident here, so let me add that it was a terrible choice in their part indeed.

Yeah, in my experience, it's very hit or miss with frontend code architecture (I primarily work with React). And I am very particular about keeping code clean and maintainable, so that can be a challenge sometimes for sure. It's not bad for smaller one-off tasks, but I still do a majority of my larger tasks by hand because I typically already know what I need and how to do it correctly.

Maybe 🗿

I've been working on a fully open source Obsidian Notes clone for over a year, and now that the decompilation AI tool just dropped I'm not sure people will believe me when I say I didn't use AI

Like all of the footguns in C++, it's only a problem if the codebase uses it wrong. When used correctly (i.e. only when behaviours mimic built-in types, and without side effects), it helps makes code more readable

Don't do what numpy does, which is to define * for two arrays. Without learning the library, you wouldn't know whether this performs element-wise multiplication, matrix multiplication, dot product or cross product. Worse yet, it behaves differently to Python's built-in * for lists (which is also bad), which concatenates N copies of the list

I talked to a frontender recently who said they had less pleasure writing frontend, because AI could make it look as good as they wanted in a fraction of the time. Has AI changed anything for you?

I was "encouraged" to use AI at work for frontend and while it output functional stuff, lifting the hood on the how, terrified me. 😅

Look at poor Haskell sobbing in the corner now.

That is WILD lol. No, after that, I did a bunch of backend server apps for a few years mostly in C#, and then I got put onto some web app stuff after that. For better or worse. I do enjoy it and appreciate the abstraction, and I have found that I do love frontend dev a lot, but I do sometimes miss the lower level languages haha.

you have the butthole profile pic??

or let a person sold you for your shit code

do you need clauds help in the bathroom too?

maybe it needs that data about you too to understand you better

Yeah, I always wonder, if it was an intentional decision or just some first draft that stayed in.

Because I do think, it's kind of smart. Some macros make sense to call with either () or {}, depending on if you pass a code snippet that's multi-line or not.
So, you could come up with a complicated syntax to define which bracket types are acceptable, or you could just not bother. 🙃

I only want the code reviewed by people. That's not the same thing as passing on a review.

BaD

I have seen commits that were coauthored or something.
Maybe the official AI plugin makes github able to sign a commit by two entities?

Is this not the most popular, widely accepted opinion?

Denial? In 2026?

Same for me, but that's because I have a rule saying to the claude to not interact with git unless instructed, and I commit manually after reviewing every line of code changed. The bot runs in its own container, isolated from all credentials, so it can't push commits and can't access production. I also hate that the super long commit messages, so I just want to write it myself.

Basically if you are surrenderinf your entire PC to AI, then you'll not get those commit messages authored by claude.

All my colleagues instead gave it access to the whole work pc including ssh keys, and the bot can do whatever the fuck it wants with the whole repo on github. It co-authors every single commit. Our master branch pushed straight to prod, and is not protected, and all our team is repo admin anyway. It's complete insanity, bordering criminal negligence.

Opus reviewing an entire codebase is pretty impressive. I use it a lot for some hobbyist stuff and its great at finding bugs, security issues, and just basic stuff like spelling/grammer mistakes.

But of course, on Lemmy you'll get downvoted because "ai bad"

If I ask an LLM to do something, the commit message is usually just the prompt. If it's for code I wrote myself, my process is to take the message, read it over, then edit appropriately before running git commit myself. It seems that this last step is what does it.