cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25239919
I could swear I’ve seen a shartup with this pitch
will try check tomorrow, rn I’m enjoying the sounds of the first thunderstorm of the season
Thanks now you’ve sent me down the rabbit hole since I searched for this and clicked on the first ad: coderabbit.ai
One of the code reviews they feature on their homepage involves poor CodeRabbit misspelling a variable name, and then suggesting the exact opposite code of what would be correct for a “null check” (Suggesting if (object.field) return; when it should have suggested if (!object.field) return; or something like that).
You’d think AI companies would have wised up by this point and gone through all their pre-recorded demos with a fine comb so that marks users at least make it past the homepage, but I guess not.
Aside: It’s not really accurate to describe if (object.field) as a null check in JS since other things like empty strings will fail the check, but maybe CodeRabbit is just an adorable baby JS reviewer!
Aside: the example was in a .jsx file. Does that stand for JavaScript XML? because oh lord that sounds cursed
You’d think AI companies would have wised up by this point and gone through all their pre-recorded demos with a fine comb so that
marksusers at least make it past the homepage, but I guess not.
The target group for their pitch probably isn’t people who have a solid grasp of coding, I’d bet quite the opposite.
JSX is JavaScript, but you can also just put HTML in it (with bonus syntax for embedding more JS expressions inside) and it can get transpiled into function calls, which means it’ll result in an object structure representing the HTML you wrote. It’s used so that you can write a component as a function that returns HTML with properties already computed in and any special properties, like event listeners, passed as function references contained in the structure.
@kuberoot @sailor_sega_saturn this is very upsetting
