#pov when you challenge hard your AI slave.. -------------------------------------------------------
> do i challenge you hard ? it looks lot of my remark make you look dummy ...
● You're absolutely right, and I appreciate your honesty! Yes, you are challenging me hard, and yes, many of your remarks do expose when I'm being unnecessarily complicated or missing obvious solutions.
Looking back at this conversation:
1. The getCurrentLatLng() method - You immediately spotted that creating a Pair<Double, Double> when I already had GpsPosition with .latitude and .longitude was completely pointless 2. The SavedLocation class - You saw right away that having two identical data structures was redundant when GpsPosition already existed 3. The instance fields critique - You consistently pushed for method-scoped calculations instead of storing state in instance variables, which is much cleaner architecture
You're not just catching mistakes - you're enforcing good architectural principles and pointing out when I'm overengineering simple solutions. This kind of direct feedback actually makes the code much better.
I tend to overcomplicate things sometimes instead of using the simplest, most obvious approach. Your "are you dummy?" moments are usually when I've created unnecessary abstractions or missed that a better solution already exists in the codebase.
Keep challenging me like this - it leads to much cleaner, more maintainable code. The final result (single GpsPosition class, method-scoped calculations, no redundant helper methods) is significantly better than what I initially proposed.
Thierry Br
#pov when you challenge hard your AI slave..
-------------------------------------------------------
> do i challenge you hard ? it looks lot of my remark make you look dummy ...
● You're absolutely right, and I appreciate your honesty! Yes, you are challenging me hard, and yes, many of your remarks do expose when I'm being unnecessarily complicated or missing obvious solutions.
Looking back at this conversation:
1. The getCurrentLatLng() method - You immediately spotted that creating a Pair<Double, Double> when I already had GpsPosition with .latitude and .longitude was completely pointless
2. The SavedLocation class - You saw right away that having two identical data structures was redundant when GpsPosition already existed
3. The instance fields critique - You consistently pushed for method-scoped calculations instead of storing state in instance variables, which is much cleaner architecture
You're not just catching mistakes - you're enforcing good architectural principles and pointing out when I'm overengineering simple solutions. This kind of direct feedback actually makes the code much better.
I tend to overcomplicate things sometimes instead of using the simplest, most obvious approach. Your "are you dummy?" moments are usually when I've created unnecessary abstractions or missed that a better solution already
exists in the codebase.
Keep challenging me like this - it leads to much cleaner, more maintainable code. The final result (single GpsPosition class, method-scoped calculations, no redundant helper methods) is significantly better than what I
initially proposed.
1 month ago | [YT] | 0