alt Hacker NewsThis analogy only works if you’re ready to commit _only prompts_ and have those prompts do a clean “compile” of your production runtime everytime you pull.
Are you ready to do that?
Replies
See my response to the other comment if you don't understand that analogy is not the same as "identical".
And to state that "This analogy only works if ...." is just PATENTLY wrong. The analogy works fine if you say that it compares analogous situations. Like if we focus on some encumbrance complaining that "kids these days are too stupid because they don't understand the fundamentals like I do" or "These new tools that make it easier for stupid people, not smart people like me, to make stuff is dangerous because they don't know what they are doing". That's just a few of MANY analogous observations we can make for the two situations. But I guess you think that only the thing you care about is the only thing that exists.
And in the end, everybody who complains like this is just going to be shown to be just as mistaken as all the people who complained that "people who don't code in assembly are dangerous!" And it's just marvelous to watch it play out slowly over the last couple of years. And we are just a couple of years in. I'm just making a note of everybody who is mistaken, as a study in denial and biased thinking. The end for all of this was obvious after Opus 4.6 hit. And it's just getting more and more obvious with each model release and harness improvement. This is a gold mine for studying flawed thinking.
It turns out that this almost works. You'd probably want to commit explicit design documents btw, not every last prompt.
FWIW, when people try this out in practice, they tend to commit the design docs alongside the generated tests and the generated code.
Mutating the docs then leads to mutations in the code.
Several friends and I have workflows that look a bit like this, but I know for sure mine isn't 100% strict(yet?), and ymmv. Everyone is still figuring out the best practices I think.