As a senior developer, I don’t find copilot particularly useful. Maybe it would have been more useful earlier in my career, but at this point writing a prompt to get copilot to regurgitate useful code and massaging the resulting output almost always takes as much or more time as it would for me just to write whatever it is I need to write. If I am able to give copilot a sufficiently specific prompt that it can ‘solve’ my problem for me, I already know how to solve the problem and how to write the code. So all I’m doing is using copilot as a ghost writer instead of writing it myself. And it doesn’t seem to be any faster. The autocomplete features are net helpful because they’re actually what I want often enough to offset the cost of reading the suggestion and deciding if it’s useful. But it’s not a huge difference (vs writing it myself) so that by itself is not sufficiently useful to justify paying the cost myself nor sufficient motivation to go to the effort of convincing my employer to pay for it.
Interesting. The way I work, variable naming is one of the key areas that I would never want to outsource to an AI – careful choice of variable names is a key part of code quality for me: unimportant things should have neutral, non-distracting names while mportant things often cause me to break out a thesaurus for just the right word.
It’s important for sure. It just so happens to also be one of those things that are very easy to verify but hard to do, which is what makes it perfect for automation.
The other nice thing about letting AI do naming is that these are names that are very statistically likely given the context. That means it’s more likely to be understood by others. If I come up with something myself, it might make sense to me, but it might not to someone else reading the code. I think this is especially important when you’re working in your own little bubble and don’t get many eyes on your code.