-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
I’ve built conviction that code generation only gets useful in the long term when it is entirely deterministic, or filtered through humans. Otherwise it is almost always technical debt. Hence LLM code generation products are a cool toy, but no sensible teams will use them without an amazing “Day 2” workflow.
As an example, in my day job (https://speakeasyapi.dev), we sell code generation products using the OpenAPI specification to generate downstream artefacts (language SDKs, terraform providers, markdown documentation). The determinism makes it useful — API updates propagate continuously from server code, to specifications, then to the SDKs / providers / docs site. There are no breaking changes because the pipeline is deterministic and humans are in control of the API at the start. The code generation itself is just a means to an end : removing boilerplate effort and language differences by driving it from a source of truth (server api routes/types). Continuously generated, it is not debt.
We’ve put a lot of effort into trying to make an LLM agent useful in this context. However giving them control of generated code directly means it’s hard to keep the “no breaking changes”, and “consistency” restrictions that’s needed to make code generation useful.
The trick we’ve landed on to get utility out of an LLM in a code generation task, is to restrict it to manipulating a strictly typed interface document, such that it can only do non-breaking things to code (e.g. adjust comments / descriptions / examples) by making changes through this interface.