this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
241 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
84828 readers
3617 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I kind of agree it's a multiplier. But so far every time I've had it do something its written such an ugly turd I have to rewire it all taking more time than if I'd just solved the problem to start with. Maybe someday but it's not up to the quality I expect of development.
Have you tried giving it coding standards and other such preferences about how you like your code to be organized? I've found that coding agents can be quite adaptable to various styles, you can put stuff like "try to keep functions less than 100 lines long" or "include assertions validating all function inputs" into your coding agent's general instructions and it'll follow them.
For me, one of the things that's a huge fundamental improvement is telling the agent to create and run unit tests for everything. That way when it does mess up accidentally it can immediately catch the problem and usually fixes it in the same session without further intervention. Unit tests used to be more trouble than they were worth most of the time, now I love them.
I'll say that during a recent week where I was forced to use an LLM, I found Claude Opus to be extremely poor at referencing this guide: https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls
it took almost an hour to get Claude to write me a shell script which I considered to be of acceptable quality. It completely hallucinated about several of the points in that guide, requiring me to just go read the guide myself to verify that the language model was falsifying information. That same task would have taken me about 5 minutes.
I believe that GIGO applies here. 99% of shell scripts on the internet are unsafe and terrible (looking at you,
set -euo pipefail), and Claude is much more likely to generate god awful garbage because of the inherent bias present in the training data.And as for unit tests? Imo, anything other than property-based testing is irrelevant. If you're using something like Pydantic, you can auto-generate a LOT of your tests using the rich type annotations available in that library along with hypothesis. I tend to write a testing framework once, and then special case property tests for things that fall outside of my models. None of this is super helpful for big ugly codebases with a lot of inertia around practices, but that's not been my environment, thankfully.
WTF are you expecting Claude to code in bash?
I have found Sonnet and Opus to both be very capable in bash, but then, I don't usually ask bash to do super-complex things - its syntax is just too screwy to think about big applications in it.
I will say, you might be misguiding the LLM by filling it full of bad examples before starting. Kind of like the advice about not staring at a tree downslope while skiing, if you're fixated on it you're MORE likely to hit it.
I gave it no advice, and all I wanted it to do was generate a script to tell me the file type of the newest file in a directory. It was a very trivial piece of code. Each time it generated something I disliked, I told it "don't do this, reference this guide for the correct thing to do," or "don't do that, do it in such a way that X happens." It was like 20 lines of bash in the end.
I was expecting it to write me a bash script because that's the example that everyone, without fail, says will work well. "I just used Claude to write a little throwaway script to move some files around" were the exact words a colleague used.
Bash is a shitty, unsafe language. I don't write large programs in it. I expect "throwaway scripts" to still be written in a way that defends against all of the innumerable shitass foot guns present in the language. Claude was incapable of doing this in a reasonable time frame.
I also dislike the Python and Go it generated, while we're at it. It produces overly verbose, overly documented, poorly performing code. It was also fucking dog shit at referencing runbooks and documentation in a local folder when I was on call and responding to alerts.
I'm glad it's been such a great help to you. I did not find it to be particularly helpful for me. It was very good at putting me in a sour mood, however.
There's the problem with your expectations. You may be able to follow your little guide to bash problems and "best practices" but defending against the innumerable shitass footguns present in bash is not a task that can be accomplished by anybody in a reasonable timeframe...
I wasn't so thrilled with Claude in the October 2025 timeframe - Opus was slow and costly and wrote un-necessarily weird solutions for simple problems, Sonnet would still get caught in bug-fix creates new bug loops. It (and the other models like Gemini, GPT, etc.) has improved, significantly, since then. Back then it wasn't hard to "make the tool look bad." It's still not too hard to make the tools look bad today if you try, but it is much easier for me to make them look good.
I, too, would be more sour mood if I hated the tools and still had to be demonstrating to management "how we're going to leverage AI for software development" - which is on our goals this year.