<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Development</title><link>https://blog.ast.moe/en/tags/development/</link><description>Recent posts: Gorimuchu</description><generator>Hugo</generator><item><title>How about writing end‑to‑end tests first in order to bring the AI agent development closer to “completion”?</title><link>https://blog.ast.moe/en/blog/2026-09-28-2/</link><pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:50:00 +0900</pubDate><guid>https://blog.ast.moe/en/blog/2026-09-28-2/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;When you have an AI agent write code, you may find that even though the problems are solved, it doesn’t feel like you are getting closer to what you want to build.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Implementation progresses. During review, issues are uncovered. Fixing one issue reveals another. Design concerns are raised, abstractions are reconsidered, tests are added, and the implementation is adjusted to make those tests pass. Each step has a justification, and the problems being pointed out are reasonably plausible.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Stance on AI Coding and Code Reviews</title><link>https://blog.ast.moe/en/blog/2026-09-25-2/</link><pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:23:11 +0900</pubDate><guid>https://blog.ast.moe/en/blog/2026-09-25-2/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;When it comes to AI coding, I think we should freely use any technology that works. Both the speed of implementation and the number of ideas we can try have changed dramatically compared to when humans wrote all the code themselves. Tasks that were once measured in hours can now be completed in a short amount of time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, just because more code is being generated doesn’t mean humans can review it at the same pace. Trying to keep the cycle going with “if AI writes a lot, humans must read a lot” is unsustainable.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>