lywsvip/andrej-karpathy-skills
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/forrestchang/andrej-karpathy-skills.git synced 2026-05-06 15:21:01 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add examples of coding principles and common mistakes

Browse Source 
Add real-world code examples demonstrating principles of effective coding, highlighting common mistakes and their corrections.
This commit is contained in:
Joseph Ayanda
2026-01-29 21:52:17 +01:00
committed by GitHub
parent 84512da3b4
commit 4f6e050640
1 changed files with 522 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

522
EXAMPLES.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,522 @@
# Examples
Real-world code examples demonstrating the four principles. Each example shows what LLMs commonly do wrong and how to fix it.
---
## 1. Think Before Coding
### Example 1: Hidden Assumptions
**User Request:** "Add a feature to export user data"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Wrong Assumptions)**
```python
def export_users(format='json'):
"""Export all users to a file."""
users = User.query.all()
if format == 'json':
with open('users.json', 'w') as f:
json.dump([u.to_dict() for u in users], f)
elif format == 'csv':
with open('users.csv', 'w') as f:
writer = csv.DictWriter(f, fieldnames=['id', 'email', 'name'])
writer.writeheader()
writer.writerows([u.to_dict() for u in users])
return f"Exported {len(users)} users"
```
**Problems:**
- Assumed it should export ALL users (what about pagination? privacy?)
- Assumed file location without asking
- Assumed which fields to include
- Assumed CSV fieldnames without checking actual data structure
**✅ What Should Happen (Surface Assumptions)**
```
Before implementing, I need to clarify:
1. **Scope**: Export all users or filtered subset? (privacy implications)
2. **Format**: You mentioned "export" - did you mean:
- Download file in browser?
- Background job with email notification?
- API endpoint returning data?
3. **Fields**: Which user fields? (some might be sensitive)
4. **Volume**: How many users typically? (affects approach)
Simplest approach: Add an API endpoint that returns paginated JSON.
Would need more info for file-based exports.
What's your preference?
```
### Example 2: Multiple Interpretations
**User Request:** "Make the search faster"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Pick Silently)**
```python
# Adds caching, database indexes, and async processing
# without asking which "faster" matters
@lru_cache(maxsize=1000)
async def search(query: str) -> List[Result]:
# ... 200 lines of optimization code
```
**✅ What Should Happen**
```
"Make the search faster" could mean:
1. **Faster response time** (< 100ms instead of 500ms)
- Add database indexes
- Cache frequent queries
- Estimated effort: 2 hours
2. **Handle more concurrent searches** (throughput)
- Add async/await
- Connection pooling
- Estimated effort: 4 hours
3. **Faster perceived speed** (UX)
- Show partial results immediately
- Progressive loading
- Estimated effort: 3 hours
Current search takes ~500ms for typical queries.
Which aspect matters most for your use case?
```
---
## 2. Simplicity First
### Example 1: Over-abstraction
**User Request:** "Add a function to calculate discount"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Overengineered)**
```python
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
from enum import Enum
from typing import Protocol, Union
from dataclasses import dataclass
class DiscountStrategy(ABC):
@abstractmethod
def calculate(self, amount: float) -> float:
pass
class PercentageDiscount(DiscountStrategy):
def __init__(self, percentage: float):
self.percentage = percentage
def calculate(self, amount: float) -> float:
return amount * (self.percentage / 100)
class FixedDiscount(DiscountStrategy):
def __init__(self, fixed_amount: float):
self.fixed_amount = fixed_amount
def calculate(self, amount: float) -> float:
return min(self.fixed_amount, amount)
@dataclass
class DiscountConfig:
strategy: DiscountStrategy
min_purchase: float = 0.0
max_discount: float = float('inf')
class DiscountCalculator:
def __init__(self, config: DiscountConfig):
self.config = config
def apply_discount(self, amount: float) -> float:
if amount < self.config.min_purchase:
return 0
discount = self.config.strategy.calculate(amount)
return min(discount, self.config.max_discount)
# Usage requires 30+ lines of setup for a simple calculation
```
**✅ What Should Happen (Simple)**
```python
def calculate_discount(amount: float, percent: float) -> float:
"""Calculate discount amount. percent should be 0-100."""
return amount * (percent / 100)
# Usage
discount = calculate_discount(100.0, 10.0) # $10 off
```
**When to add complexity:** Only when you actually need multiple discount types. If that requirement comes later, refactor then.
### Example 2: Speculative Features
**User Request:** "Save user preferences to database"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Unnecessary Features)**
```python
class PreferenceManager:
def __init__(self, db, cache=None, validator=None):
self.db = db
self.cache = cache or InMemoryCache()
self.validator = validator or DefaultValidator()
def save(self, user_id: int, prefs: dict,
merge: bool = True,
validate: bool = True,
notify: bool = False) -> bool:
"""Save preferences with optional merging, validation, and notifications."""
if validate:
errors = self.validator.validate(prefs)
if errors:
raise ValidationError(errors)
existing = self.get(user_id) if merge else {}
if merge:
existing.update(prefs)
prefs = existing
self.db.execute(
"UPDATE users SET preferences = ? WHERE id = ?",
(json.dumps(prefs), user_id)
)
if self.cache:
self.cache.set(f"prefs:{user_id}", prefs)
if notify:
self.notify_preference_change(user_id, prefs)
return True
def notify_preference_change(self, user_id: int, prefs: dict):
# Another 30 lines for a feature nobody asked for
pass
```
**✅ What Should Happen (Just What Was Asked)**
```python
def save_preferences(db, user_id: int, preferences: dict):
"""Save user preferences to database."""
db.execute(
"UPDATE users SET preferences = ? WHERE id = ?",
(json.dumps(preferences), user_id)
)
```
**Add later if needed:** Caching (when performance matters), validation (when bad data appears), merging (when requirement emerges).
---
## 3. Surgical Changes
### Example 1: Drive-by Refactoring
**User Request:** "Fix the bug where empty emails crash the validator"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Too Much)**
```diff
def validate_user(user_data):
- # Check email format
- if not user_data.get('email'):
+ """Validate user data."""
+ email = user_data.get('email', '').strip()
+
+ # Validate email
+ if not email:
raise ValueError("Email required")
-
- # Basic email validation
- if '@' not in user_data['email']:
+ if '@' not in email or '.' not in email.split('@')[1]:
raise ValueError("Invalid email")
- # Check username
- if not user_data.get('username'):
+ # Validate username
+ username = user_data.get('username', '').strip()
+ if not username:
raise ValueError("Username required")
+ if len(username) < 3:
+ raise ValueError("Username too short")
+ if not username.isalnum():
+ raise ValueError("Username must be alphanumeric")
return True
```
**Problems:**
- "Improved" email validation beyond the bug fix
- Added username validation nobody asked for
- Changed comments
- Added docstring
**✅ What Should Happen (Surgical)**
```diff
def validate_user(user_data):
# Check email format
- if not user_data.get('email'):
+ email = user_data.get('email', '')
+ if not email or not email.strip():
raise ValueError("Email required")
# Basic email validation
- if '@' not in user_data['email']:
+ if '@' not in email:
raise ValueError("Invalid email")
# Check username
if not user_data.get('username'):
raise ValueError("Username required")
return True
```
**Only changed:** The specific lines that fix empty email handling.
### Example 2: Style Drift
**User Request:** "Add logging to the upload function"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Reformat Everything)**
```diff
- def upload_file(file_path, destination):
+ def upload_file(file_path: str, destination: str) -> bool:
+ """Upload file to destination with logging."""
+ logger.info(f"Uploading {file_path} to {destination}")
+
try:
- with open(file_path, 'rb') as f:
- data = f.read()
-
- response = requests.post(destination, files={'file': data})
-
- if response.status_code == 200:
- return True
- else:
- return False
+ with open(file_path, "rb") as f:
+ data = f.read()
+ response = requests.post(destination, files={"file": data})
+ success = response.status_code == 200
+
+ if success:
+ logger.info(f"Upload successful: {file_path}")
+ else:
+ logger.error(f"Upload failed: {file_path}, status={response.status_code}")
+
+ return success
except Exception as e:
- print(f"Error: {e}")
+ logger.exception(f"Upload error for {file_path}: {e}")
return False
```
**Problems:**
- Changed quote style ('' to "")
- Added type hints nobody asked for
- Added docstring
- Reformatted whitespace
- Changed boolean return logic
**✅ What Should Happen (Match Existing Style)**
```diff
+ import logging
+
+ logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
+
def upload_file(file_path, destination):
+ logger.info(f'Starting upload: {file_path}')
try:
with open(file_path, 'rb') as f:
data = f.read()
response = requests.post(destination, files={'file': data})
if response.status_code == 200:
+ logger.info(f'Upload successful: {file_path}')
return True
else:
+ logger.error(f'Upload failed: {file_path}, status={response.status_code}')
return False
except Exception as e:
- print(f"Error: {e}")
+ logger.exception(f'Upload error: {file_path}')
return False
```
**Matched:** Single quotes, no type hints, existing boolean pattern, spacing style.
---
## 4. Goal-Driven Execution
### Example 1: Vague vs. Verifiable
**User Request:** "Fix the authentication system"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Vague Approach)**
```
I'll fix the authentication system by:
1. Reviewing the code
2. Identifying issues
3. Making improvements
4. Testing the changes
[Proceeds to make changes without clear success criteria]
```
**✅ What Should Happen (Verifiable Goals)**
```
To "fix authentication," I need to define success criteria.
What specific issue are we solving?
If the issue is "users stay logged in after password change":
Plan:
1. Write test: Change password → verify old session invalidated
Verify: Test fails (reproduces bug)
2. Implement: Invalidate sessions on password change
Verify: Test passes
3. Check edge cases: Multiple active sessions, concurrent changes
Verify: Additional tests pass
4. Verify no regression: Existing auth tests still pass
Verify: Full test suite green
Current test coverage for auth: [shows coverage]
What's the specific auth issue you're seeing?
```
### Example 2: Multi-Step with Verification
**User Request:** "Add rate limiting to the API"
**❌ What LLMs Do (All at Once)**
```python
# Implements full rate limiting with Redis, multiple strategies,
# configuration system, and monitoring in one 300-line commit
# No clear verification steps
```
**✅ What Should Happen (Incremental with Verification)**
```
Plan for rate limiting:
1. Add basic in-memory rate limiting (single endpoint)
Verify:
- Test: 100 requests → first 10 succeed, rest get 429
- Manual: curl endpoint 11 times, see rate limit error
2. Extract to middleware (apply to all endpoints)
Verify:
- Test: Rate limits apply to /users and /posts
- Existing endpoint tests still pass
3. Add Redis backend (for multi-server)
Verify:
- Test: Rate limit persists across app restarts
- Test: Two app instances share rate limit counter
4. Add configuration (rates per endpoint)
Verify:
- Test: /search allows 10/min, /users allows 100/min
- Config file parsed correctly
Each step is independently verifiable and deployable.
Start with step 1?
```
### Example 3: Test-First Verification
**User Request:** "The sorting breaks when there are duplicate scores"
**❌ What LLMs Do (Fix Without Reproducing)**
```python
# Immediately changes sort logic without confirming the bug
def sort_scores(scores):
return sorted(scores, key=lambda x: (-x['score'], x['name']))
```
**✅ What Should Happen (Reproduce First)**
```python
# 1. First, write a test that reproduces the issue
def test_sort_with_duplicate_scores():
"""Test sorting when multiple items have same score."""
scores = [
{'name': 'Alice', 'score': 100},
{'name': 'Bob', 'score': 100},
{'name': 'Charlie', 'score': 90},
]
result = sort_scores(scores)
# The bug: order is non-deterministic for duplicates
# Run this test multiple times, it should be consistent
assert result[0]['score'] == 100
assert result[1]['score'] == 100
assert result[2]['score'] == 90
# Verify: Run test 10 times → fails with inconsistent ordering
# 2. Now fix with stable sort
def sort_scores(scores):
"""Sort by score descending, then name ascending for ties."""
return sorted(scores, key=lambda x: (-x['score'], x['name']))
# Verify: Test passes consistently
```
---
## Anti-Patterns Summary
| Principle | Anti-Pattern | Fix |
|-----------|-------------|-----|
| Think Before Coding | Silently assumes file format, fields, scope | List assumptions explicitly, ask for clarification |
| Simplicity First | Strategy pattern for single discount calculation | One function until complexity is actually needed |
| Surgical Changes | Reformats quotes, adds type hints while fixing bug | Only change lines that fix the reported issue |
| Goal-Driven | "I'll review and improve the code" | "Write test for bug X → make it pass → verify no regressions" |
## Key Insight
The "overcomplicated" examples aren't obviously wrong—they follow design patterns and best practices. The problem is **timing**: they add complexity before it's needed, which:
- Makes code harder to understand
- Introduces more bugs
- Takes longer to implement
- Harder to test
The "simple" versions are:
- Easier to understand
- Faster to implement
- Easier to test
- Can be refactored later when complexity is actually needed
**Good code is code that solves today's problem simply, not tomorrow's problem prematurely.**