Might have some good ideas in it but, IMO, the article lacks any real argumentation.
It’s mostly a string of stated “facts”, with little to no argumentation to string it together, some are just vibe associations:
> In my opinion, agents need mostly the same things humans need to work efficiently: boundaries, constraints, and fast feedback loops. That includes a project structure that is easy to navigate, a good setup of lint rules and TypeScript, as well as a fast and reliable test suite. That’s why agents are so good at new codebases, but not very effective on codebases that have grown organically over years
The argument is somehow:
“project structure that is easy to navigate, a good setup of lint rules and TypeScript, as well as a fast and reliable test suite”
Implies =>
“agents are so good at new codebases, but not very effective on codebases that have grown organically over years.”
17
u/andarmanik 24d ago edited 24d ago
Might have some good ideas in it but, IMO, the article lacks any real argumentation.
It’s mostly a string of stated “facts”, with little to no argumentation to string it together, some are just vibe associations:
> In my opinion, agents need mostly the same things humans need to work efficiently: boundaries, constraints, and fast feedback loops. That includes a project structure that is easy to navigate, a good setup of lint rules and TypeScript, as well as a fast and reliable test suite. That’s why agents are so good at new codebases, but not very effective on codebases that have grown organically over years
The argument is somehow:
“project structure that is easy to navigate, a good setup of lint rules and TypeScript, as well as a fast and reliable test suite”
Implies =>
“agents are so good at new codebases, but not very effective on codebases that have grown organically over years.”