Now that the dust has settled, was RTFM (Reading the Effing Manual) a good thing? Did it ever help you out? LLMs have rendered RTFM moot and there's a new generation of "programmers" who won't RTFM, ever. Do you think they'll be worse programmers?
>>107684288>effing
>>107684288Reading the manual is still required if you want to understand the code your LLM generated.
>>107684288You still have to read the fucking manual if you want to properly understand something, assuming the fucking manual is good instead of being just code in English like the python docs or cpp reference. For example the .NET docs will beat an LLM at explaining .NET concepts but I wouldn’t even think about reading the python docs, just ask Claude. RTFM came from a time where software was generally quite well documented anyway. It stopped being relevant about a decade ago when code became features first docs optional.
Moot is a name, you very sorely have not actually the tools to render.Keeping reading manuals, you have a path
>>107684375Holy Brownoid ESL, Batman!
>>107684525Not in your understanding and not of a universe your capacity could devise
>>107684348why would you need to understand the code? newer LLMs can create code consistently frok good plans - which you can understand without docs
>>107684288Reading documentation has always helped and is a good thing so long as the documentation was well written. There were some API docs that were pretty much useless and I had to experiment before writing my own much more worthwhile documentation.LLMs lie frequently because being correct is not part of their training, and the new generation of "programmers" are already demonstrably worse since my entire workload has shifted to cleaning up their irreparable messes. Just as bad as, if not worse than jeet code.
