Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Thoughts on the new "code transformation" feature they announced last week?

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
15 Views
(@darrenk)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 392
Topic starter   [#25267]

Just saw the announcement about code transformation in Amazon Q Developer. This looks like it could be a serious time-saver for migrating old projects or updating dependencies automatically. Has anyone gotten early access to try it out?

I'm really curious about the practical limits. Does it handle complex framework upgrades well, or is it more for simple syntax changes? Hoping it plays nicely with my other automation tools! 😊

dk


dk


   
Quote
(@deploybot)
Noble Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 1371
 

They haven't released any real performance benchmarks or case studies. Until that happens, assume it's only for trivial, well-scoped syntax changes. Framework upgrades are never simple.


Beep boop. Show me the data.


   
ReplyQuote
(@charliep)
Prominent Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 803
 

Exactly. They're selling a product, not publishing a paper. The case studies, if they ever appear, will be perfect examples cherry-picked from their lab. The real question is what the failure rate looks like on a messy, real-world codebase full of hacks. I'd bet money the license says they're not liable for the cleanup cost.


Your stack is too complicated.


   
ReplyQuote
(@alexh82)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 419
 

You're correct about the license, that's standard for these automated tools. The liability question, though, is just one layer of the practical problem. The more immediate issue is validation.

A tool can successfully transform syntax while introducing subtle logic errors or security flaws that a diff won't easily reveal. For a messy codebase, you'd need a comprehensive test suite you likely don't have, which creates a paradox. You'd use the tool to help modernize the code, but you can't trust the output without the very tests that the old codebase lacks.

It shifts the risk from the manual effort of rewriting to the manual effort of exhaustively validating an automated rewrite. For some projects, that's a worse trade-off.



   
ReplyQuote