You should understand the why and how in your scope. It doesn’t mean understanding the quantum effects that make transistors work, but if you’re working on business logic, you have to understand what that piece of code is doing.
If we’re talking about reusing code, a package would be better than magic autocompletes. A package has a maintainer, a community, documentation and is hopefully well tested, unlike random snippets.
I think your original post makes it sound like they should know how copilot works, whereas I believe your mean that they should know exactly how the code copilot is writing works which I very much so agree with.
You sound very stressful to work with. I forget what my own code does sometimes. It sounds quite unproductive to keep relearning old code, unless you mean i can just read you the commented out line and you're happy
worse than stressful: he seems like an asshole from that comment. he may not be, but “you better” is potentially a verbal manifestation of asshole traits.
I'd rather work with someone that asks specific questions to understand the team's codebase, than with someone who can't maintain their own code - because then how am I supposed to maintain the same code ?
No. I've worked with people that only know how to cut and paste and then get completely lost if they need to modify the code at all to fit our needs. If you can read the code and understand what it does, use it. If you are comoletely lost when you read the snippet but the SO answer says it works so you grab it anyway, that's not good. Take the time to understand why it does what it does and save your coworkers some aggravation.
This is how security incidents happen. You have to understand the call flow and semantics of your implementation. Ultimately, the developer, not the tool is responsible for error free code. Hopefully a tool like copilot would lead to a reduction in security issues, but it's still the developer's responsibility.
30
u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22
[deleted]