It's been a couple weeks, but I am still irritated.
I am asking you, the person who supposedly wrote this, what it does. When you submit your code for review, that's among the most basic questions you should be prepared to answer.
When he gets back and don't understand the feedback, then you can conveniently ask him to ask an LLM and not waste your time.
I am OK with the author using AI heavily. But if I continue to see slop, I will continue to review less and send it back.
In the end, if the engineer is fiddling around for too long, they don't get any work in, which is a performance issue.
I am always available to help out the colleague to write understand the system and write code.
For me, the key is to not accept to review AI slop just like I do not accept reviewing other types of slop.
If something is recognized as slop, it is not ready to be reviews.
This puts an upwards pressure on developers to deliver better code.
I cannot help but read this whole experience as: “We forced an engineer to take sales calls and we found out that the issue was that our PMs are doing a terrible job communicating between customer and engineering, and our DevOps engineer is more capable/actionable at turning customer needs into working solutions.”
You can not transfer categorical statements like you do.
Ad the other commenter wrote: The 25% is assumed - this has nothing to do with competence but to what level an assumption is true.
Everybody can point fingers at 25 year old code and call the developers incompetent because surrounding requirements have changed.
Yiu also have to step back and consider why people feel like the need to bundle up in the cities - if that a General lack of opportunity elsewhere due to inequality?
You are seeing a wound and saying: yep, that happened because the skin got damaged.
You realize that’s abysmally bad performance for any reasonable OLTP query, right? Sub-msec (as measured by the DB, not including RTT etc.) is very achievable, even at scale. 2-3 msec for complex queries.
You have likely not experienced it as governments and monetary systems have absorbed these risks (ie. they have moved them elsewhere, hidden away, until some major explosion happens).