Just tried using Cline to refactor a chunk of legacy ticket automation code. It suggested a change from a `for` loop to using `map()`, which is fine, but the explanation was just "This is more idiomatic."
That's not helpful for learning. *Why* is it better here? Performance? Readability? Specific to the language version we're on?
I've noticed this pattern:
* Suggests a library or method without explaining the trade-offs.
* Says "this fixes the bug" but doesn't detail the root cause it identified.
* Misses a chance to teach a better pattern.
It feels like getting an answer from a senior dev who's too busy to explain their reasoning. The "what" is often correct, but the "why" is missing.
Anyone else running into this? Found a good way to prompt it for deeper explanations?
~hj
Automate the boring stuff.