I would love to have an /improve command. Essentially, I envision writing my own code first and then seeking feedback from Copilot for suggestions on better approaches, improved syntax, and more.
I am going to say chat is more useful if your dont want to add some more context. For me comments have been more relevant and helped in smaller functions and hinting was a lot better with keeping code readable without losing the comments.
I disagree a bit with using comments in code for copilot: how to persist instructions for copilot in context otherwise? copilot has a very bad memory from chats.
@@crackwitz it's not always already in the code if Copilot does not perform as expected. Then it's IMHO helpful to have the comments as supporting "context". I think it also make sense to omit the verbs: "table of customers" instead of "create table of...."
For me, both inline chat and the chat panel have been useless. Suggestions are always much lower quality than ghost text, whether I highlight the context or not. And I have to do extra work to get them (i.e. explain what I want). When context is needed, I go to Chat GPT in the browser, where I can have control over the context and have a conversation with it.
This is my experience too, I am using Linux and I've tried more than 5 times using the *inline chat* instead of the *comment-prompting*, and comment-prompting always win. Inline chat seems to not understand where I want the change or its context is messed up
@workshop looks all the files in the folder right? Even if you are working in js file workshop will keep html and css files in context as well right? Please explain. The suggestions via @workshop are thus wholistic and more relevant. Is my understanding correct?
@@squishy-tomato thank you for quick feedback. I have been using copilot for just over 3 months and it has greatly improved by ability in javascript sphere. I am glad I got this clarified. thanks
Tried doing it this way and the code comments is much faster/more natural. using special commands and then clicking with the mouse (or finding the right number of tabs) is not convenient. Why not adapt to how users like to use it instead of adding gui components and pushing that and saying the other way is wrong when user experience says otherwise. AI should integrate naturally.
Also, code just looks bad when all your prompts are strewn across it. It smells. Comments are for "why", not for "what". You should make a video on that coding practice. It looks like a lot of beginners use copilot and have terrible coding habits.
copilot is practically useless as it requires me to use a mouse and keyboard to activate the microphone before asking a question. why didn't they give it an interface like google assistant that's listening all the time and activates the mic when it hears, "Hey Google!". smh so was it designed to be a code generating assistant? if so, that's not what they're touting it as. in fact, this is the first indication i've seen where coding was even mentioned. although i could see how it might be useful for those who proficient at typing. better to learn how to touch type IMO.
Why not use comments? It is because we cant help make co-pilot better by accepting correct answers and helping it learn? If that is the case, be transparent about it.
In my experience copilot just isn't as good when prompting with comments. Instead of suggesting code it often suggests more comments. What's cool about in line chat is you can ask it to do something, it'll create a diff for you to review and before accepting you can change the prompt to get copilot to tweak the suggestion it gave you. It's a pretty nice way to iterate on code suggestions and not possible to do with comments. If a comment generates a bad reply you have to make your comment even more verbose and copilot loses the context of the generated code you're trying to get it to make changes to. Yes github probably benefits from you using inline chat and feedback. But you also benefit from a better experience.
If copilot suggest a comment for a comment then start typing the code, that will help. Copilot is trained on docs and code, help it by narrowing it down. In editor and chat are two great experiences if you know how to use it
For me it's just inconvenient to use comments as you need to delete the comments again after copilot generated your answer (unless you want to leave them there and have a code full of copilot prompts)
Did you not see his example? He added a comment in the middle of an HTML block purely to instruct the AI. You would never in real life want this “comment” embedded in your HTML like this. In real life you’d add the comment to instruct the AI and then be forced to delete the comment afterwards. Keep in mind this is just an example. You shouldn’t create temporary code or comments for the mere purpose of asking the AI to generate something. That’s why the CTRL+I menu exists, that’s what problem it solves.
Love it. Thank you for the video. Love your delivery style. Also love Copilot, it is a smart time saver.
Very helpful. I had no idea some of these features existed. Thanks.
I would love to have an /improve command. Essentially, I envision writing my own code first and then seeking feedback from Copilot for suggestions on better approaches, improved syntax, and more.
My takeaway from the video: use inline chat(command + i), use / command.
So why comments for prompting is bad though? maybe not very effective I get it but I feel like the video didn't tell me why it is bad.
This was helpful for me. Thank you
thanks, very usefull !
"it is constantly learning from your.... feedback" :D
lol ikr I got a chuckle out of that
I am going to say chat is more useful if your dont want to add some more context. For me comments have been more relevant and helped in smaller functions and hinting was a lot better with keeping code readable without losing the comments.
This video is very meaningful. I learned a lot. Thank you for sharing.
What theme you are using?
I disagree a bit with using comments in code for copilot: how to persist instructions for copilot in context otherwise?
copilot has a very bad memory from chats.
The "what" is already encoded in the code. Comments are for "why".
@@crackwitz it's not always already in the code if Copilot does not perform as expected. Then it's IMHO helpful to have the comments as supporting "context". I think it also make sense to omit the verbs: "table of customers" instead of "create table of...."
For me, both inline chat and the chat panel have been useless. Suggestions are always much lower quality than ghost text, whether I highlight the context or not. And I have to do extra work to get them (i.e. explain what I want). When context is needed, I go to Chat GPT in the browser, where I can have control over the context and have a conversation with it.
This is my experience too, I am using Linux and I've tried more than 5 times using the *inline chat* instead of the *comment-prompting*, and comment-prompting always win. Inline chat seems to not understand where I want the change or its context is messed up
Why should comments not be used for prompts?
Because that's not how we usually write the code, and it doesn't look clean
what vscode theme is used in this video please? I liked it
before ctrl+i was a thing, I constantly used the comment method.
@workshop looks all the files in the folder right? Even if you are working in js file workshop will keep html and css files in context as well right? Please explain. The suggestions via @workshop are thus wholistic and more relevant. Is my understanding correct?
@@squishy-tomato thank you for quick feedback. I have been using copilot for just over 3 months and it has greatly improved by ability in javascript sphere. I am glad I got this clarified. thanks
I have set my vscode to only use a single tab at all times. Does that mean I cannot use workspace?
What's not to love. Microsoft knows how to make it easy for beginners.
Great video.
The chat icon has disappeared from my VS Code. Does anyone know why?
Tried doing it this way and the code comments is much faster/more natural. using special commands and then clicking with the mouse (or finding the right number of tabs) is not convenient.
Why not adapt to how users like to use it instead of adding gui components and pushing that and saying the other way is wrong when user experience says otherwise. AI should integrate naturally.
Actually its awesome but I will need some slightly explanation of something you said
opening multiple files does nothing even witht he #file command because the context is extremely small and can barely cover half a file
Does that also works on Visual studio 2022
Yes it works with copilot installed as extension
0:46 this was exactly the first prompt I wrote when I used copilot for the first time 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
hahahaha! Too greedy man.
1:50 pffft. mouse.
Also, code just looks bad when all your prompts are strewn across it. It smells. Comments are for "why", not for "what".
You should make a video on that coding practice. It looks like a lot of beginners use copilot and have terrible coding habits.
Comments aren't always efficient
copilot is practically useless as it requires me to use a mouse and keyboard to activate the microphone before asking a question. why didn't they give it an interface like google assistant that's listening all the time and activates the mic when it hears, "Hey Google!". smh
so was it designed to be a code generating assistant? if so, that's not what they're touting it as. in fact, this is the first indication i've seen where coding was even mentioned. although i could see how it might be useful for those who proficient at typing. better to learn how to touch type IMO.
Why not use comments? It is because we cant help make co-pilot better by accepting correct answers and helping it learn? If that is the case, be transparent about it.
Lol
In my experience copilot just isn't as good when prompting with comments. Instead of suggesting code it often suggests more comments. What's cool about in line chat is you can ask it to do something, it'll create a diff for you to review and before accepting you can change the prompt to get copilot to tweak the suggestion it gave you. It's a pretty nice way to iterate on code suggestions and not possible to do with comments. If a comment generates a bad reply you have to make your comment even more verbose and copilot loses the context of the generated code you're trying to get it to make changes to.
Yes github probably benefits from you using inline chat and feedback. But you also benefit from a better experience.
If copilot suggest a comment for a comment then start typing the code, that will help. Copilot is trained on docs and code, help it by narrowing it down. In editor and chat are two great experiences if you know how to use it
For me it's just inconvenient to use comments as you need to delete the comments again after copilot generated your answer (unless you want to leave them there and have a code full of copilot prompts)
Did you not see his example? He added a comment in the middle of an HTML block purely to instruct the AI. You would never in real life want this “comment” embedded in your HTML like this. In real life you’d add the comment to instruct the AI and then be forced to delete the comment afterwards.
Keep in mind this is just an example. You shouldn’t create temporary code or comments for the mere purpose of asking the AI to generate something. That’s why the CTRL+I menu exists, that’s what problem it solves.
4:03 fixing that missing =, yeahh totaly worth 38$ per month