Coding agents require clear, high-quality instructions and direction to generate correct code. Vague or poorly guided prompts lead to incorrect outputs, and without monitoring and continual nudging, results drift away from the intended goal. Trust in agentic coding should not be treated as binary. Dismissing an agent after a single imperfect output mirrors firing a junior developer for not getting everything right from minimal instructions. Evaluation should account for guidance quality and iterative improvement rather than assuming failure proves worthlessness.
"Just like with a human developer, if you give your coding agent crappy instructions, if you don't give it proper guidance, if you don't take the time to point it in the right direction, you'll get bad code. If you don't keep an eye on things and continually nudge things in the right direction, you'll end up in the wrong place. No surprise."
"Imagine if you hired a junior developer, gave them a two-sentence instruction, got back something that wasn't quite right, and then fired them because of it. That would be silly, right? Well, that is what a lot of developers are doing with coding agents."
"Saying "I tried agentic coding, and it hallucinated something, so it is clearly worthless" isn't any different."
Read at InfoWorld
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]