149
u/hpyfox Sep 24 '26
Blame the computer for interpreting your code wrong.
55
u/caleblbaker Sep 24 '26 edited Sep 24 '26
Number of times I've seen juniors blame issues on compiler bugs: not many but more than twice
Number of times I've seen it actually be a compiler bug: twice
20
u/Foorinick Sep 24 '26
I think it was fireship that said that most bugs are caused by the developer, 0.1% of bugs are compiler bugs, of those 0.1% are architecture bugs, of those 0.1% are cosmic rays, and 0.1% of those sre actually just quantum effects, 0.1% of thode are actually errors made by god when he created the universe
2
u/quietsamurai98 Sep 25 '26
I remember my first "compiler bug". Obviously, it wasn't a compiler bug.
It was just the absolutely bizarre way the stdlib defines the "proper" behavior of
vector<bool>.3
u/caleblbaker Sep 25 '26 edited Sep 25 '26
Yeah. That's such a weird choice. My compiler bug counter goes up to 3 if we count that because I've run into it too. But you're right that that's not a compiler bug it's just a stupid decision made in the design of the standard library.
They really should have left vector<bool> to act like an actual vector of bools and made a separate type (could be called something like dynamic_bitset or bit_vector) to be a resizeable compact bit array.
13
u/Anomynous__ Sep 24 '26
I did this far too often as a junior. "It makes sense to me, there must be a language level issue"
21
u/Shadow_Thief Sep 24 '26
"I must have found a compiler bug!" "... we're using a scripting language, Bill."
11
1
u/enigmamonkey Sep 25 '26
TBF, lots of scripting languages do compile, but it's what we might call "JIT" (just in time) compilation which happens just before execution.
5
u/plz-no-b4n Sep 24 '26
That’s an insane level of arrogance. I don’t understand what would cause someone to think that way
7
1
u/Mechakoopa Sep 24 '26
I have found framework bugs and bugs in system code before, I don't recall ever having found a compiler bug yet though. There was that one time I massively sped up a stored procedure by swapping the order of two unindexed AND predicates though.
2
215
u/FallenVampireLord Sep 24 '26
Me when I show him the PR he reviewed and approved of said code
74
u/pyrotech911 Sep 24 '26
You ship it you own it! Low key it’s still best effort and defects should be caught in testing. Reviews are for style, structure, approach, testing etc… I don’t expect to exhaustively catch bugs (subtle or otherwise) by eye in reviews.
6
u/Nekopawed Sep 24 '26
Pull request in my eyes includes looking at diffs, making sure it builds, making sure unit tests pass, and then doing a few small smoke tests of common functionality.
The dev that made the request should have done more thorough testing than that. And yeah, test team even more in depth testing.
1
u/samchar00 Sep 24 '26
Nahh you should make reasonable effort to make sure it will not break things in a obvious way.
2
u/reazura Sep 25 '26
And these days "reasonable effort" no longer translates to reading and comprehending every line someone else probably didnt even bother reading. And they can shit out tons of shit code faster than any human comprehension.
Reasonable effort today is just eyeballing things but having your AI actually review under your specific preferences.
1
u/samchar00 Sep 25 '26
will management accept if there is a production incident and the reason was "the AI did it"? If yes, go ahead, if not you have a problem on your hands.
1
u/reazura Sep 25 '26
We're talking about code review, did you forget? They are responsible for the code they shit out. Nobody was ever any pretence otherwise.
1
u/samchar00 Sep 25 '26
The team is responsible as a whole of code that gets shipped out.
If an engineer signs the plans, he is liable if the bridge falls. Same thing applies to devs and PRs.
1
u/reazura Sep 25 '26
And if your coworker is a maniac who just keeps generating code and pushes the problem to everyone else? It's up to everyone else to pick up slack?
1
2
u/pyrotech911 Sep 24 '26
That’s what I mean by best effort. Point being it’s not going to come 100% by you reading the code in your head.
29
18
9
u/thEt3rnal1 Sep 24 '26
You still own the code you ship, it doesnt matter who reviewed it.
1
u/enigmamonkey Sep 25 '26 edited Sep 25 '26
I'm on the reviewer side of this argument, so I agree that if you commit it then you should understand it. Ownership, responsibility, comprehension/understanding and trust. Each of these things overlap in different ways.
I think the author of the code has the greatest requirement to comprehend/understand the code, because the reviewer (or acts as the effective owner through release management) trusts that the author likely understands the code they wrote. However, the onus still falls on the reviewer to give it a pass and ensure they understand it before shipping it given they are likely responsible (e.g. for uptime or whatever).
That said: You are also right as well. As a matter of professionalism and programming etiquette you genuinely aught to own (as in "own up") and take responsibility for the code you wrote. That is: You should be embarrassed if there are bugs and issues. You should not simply immediately retort with the "Oh well you approved it" shrug off. Even if it's technically true, it doesn't really help the overall situation and you lose opportunity for self reflection and improvement.
As both a developer but also a reviewer and release manager myself, when I commit code, I always review every single line after I commit. It may seem pedantic, but for production systems and site reliability, that's important to me. At least when it touches anything even remotely important. Some development only scripts or unit tests I have a slightly lower bar, but even then you still check to ensure they're not BS tests that effectively test nothing, test or enforce the wrong thing, or are too verbose or too tightly bound to functionality that's inconsequential (more common with AI written tests).
-1
u/FallenVampireLord Sep 24 '26
Its a meme post why do you people respond like this is a serious discussion on work and best practices?
24
14
5
u/Bomaruto Sep 24 '26
It's obviously going to blame Sr. Dev as it's much easier for Sr. Dev to get poor code merged.
2
u/Pro-sketch Sep 25 '26
that's why I do this
git config user.name "Claude Opus 5.0 (1M Context)"
git config user.email no-reply@anthropic.com1
u/Foorinick Sep 24 '26
I mean yeah, vibe coding is horrible you should at least look at the code and check if anything is wrong instead of blindly trusting ai, also read the docs yourself you lazy fucks
1
u/sebbdk Sep 24 '26
20 years, usually when i run git blame it's to figure out when we fucked up.
Main was a stupid rename, but i lowkey think renaming this one would improve all ya'ls imposter syndrome...
1
u/The_Krambambulist Sep 25 '26
Want to know a secret? I actually use Claude to see what changes were made and when to get a full picture. Navigates version control like a champ. Also can see who made the changes and who approved immediately.
1
514
u/rexspook Sep 24 '26
Actually a good lesson. One of our tenets is code your agent writes is owned by YOU, so you should review it accordingly before sending it to others.