GitHub Copilot Reviews

Summary: Copilot is a terrible tool compared to ChatGPT for programming websites. 80% of the times it doesn't answer a command prompt, you get ghosted more by this tool then by your ex lol. And in the rare case it answers you, it presents you with a wrong answer. Really sad to see that this GitHub project doesn't deliver on its promise, was really looking forward to using it. I definitely recommend anyone that is a coder to use ChatGPT 4 instead.

Positive: I am afraid there is nothing positive to say unfortunately. It's not even close to being as good as ChatGPT.

Negative: - Doesn't reply 80% of the times
- In the 20% of times it does reply it's mostly unusable code

Summary: GitHub Copilot is an impressive experiment but doesn't really live up to the hype. Visual Studio's Intellicode can use AI to analyze your specific codebase and provide suggestions including context, with no possibility of including stolen open source code in your project.

Positive: - genuinely useful at reducing the amount of boilerplate code you have to type
- generating code from just comments is pretty cool

Negative: - code is not context aware and often uses variables that don't exist
- code sometimes has difficult to spot bugs and must be checked carefully
- the code was trained on stolen open source software, ignoring specified licenses
- expensive subscription service

Summary: Overall, GitHub Copilot is one of the best tools for a faster coding experience. It comes quite handy when you are late on schedule and need to finish the coding sprint ASAP.

Positive: - It gives accurate suggestions and auto-completion almost all the time.
- It works with almost all the new and old libraries and frameworks.
- it gives not only obvious suggestions for auto-completion but also relevant and customized suggestions according to the project.
- It is quite straightforward to use just install the extension on the code editor and it starts working like a charm.

Negative: - One thing I noticed is if I am creating a project from scratch it does not give accurate auto-completion right from the start instead it takes time to analyze the project and then provides relevant suggestions.
- Pricing can be a bit better.

Summary: So far I'm impressed with GitHub Copilot. It automates a lot of basic and tedious parts of coding. I'll probably keep using it for now.

Positive: GitHub Copilot works pretty well, and works better than I thought it would when I first decided to try it. It's snappy, works with a variety of IDEs, and is pretty accurate and efficient.

Negative: Haven't used it long enough to find any red flags yet, but I will update my review if I come across any cons.

Summary: Great tool, takes a lot of work off of me, helps me to write code faster and better. Currently using it for free as a student, but i would easily pay the 100 bucks per year for it. great value to me.

Positive: - Easy to use, uses context of File currently in use and others in the project.
- sometimes need some little things added, but generally can create fully working functions by just a name.

Negative: - So far haven't found any.
- Maybe creates a risk of relying on it to much for some people.

Summary: Great to have as a backstop for tedious work and to code by my lead.
Helps put the code design together by example.

Positive: Guesses what code you want to generate from context.
Good choices as it suggests code from what you have written.
Good for tedious coding.
Works seamlessly in VS Code.

Negative: Expensive.
Unable to trigger on demand.
More settings/customizations would be nice.

Summary: Overall, I think GitHub Copilot is a great tool for writing code faster, and is definitely a great tool if you constantly need to look up documentation on stack overflow, as it can also insert snippets for you based on your comments.

Positive: GitHub Copilot is amazing at predicting what code you want to write and can generate code just with comments that you give it. It's very powerful and generates what you'd want it to about 90% of the time. It can also implement code from stack overflow, or generate its own code when you provide it with enough details. It's also really good at making valid CSS that does exactly what you want it to do.

Negative: It doesn't like to complete the last bracket of if statements, or for function calls that use the arrow syntax, or for when it does decide to complete it, it moves your typing cursor to the end of the line, which means you have to pick up the mouse and move to inside the loop. But apart from that, there really isn't much else bad to say about it.