Yup, and I tested it. Manual retyping is about 2x as fast in this case.
However, the main strength of automated refactoring is their safety, both in terms of accurately executing the changes and in terms of evaluating pitfalls (some of the time).
When I talked to other people about chaining automated refactorings vs manually retyping, there was a preference for safety over speed, especially in legacy code that's more complex than this toy example.
Unless it's an extensive variable rename, my instincts are quite the opposite... I much prefer to do it myself - a tool like this just feels cumbersome and unnecessary
From the look of the video, it would have been quicker just to re-type the refactored version yourself?
On this .. refactoring yourself would also increase your knowledge and understanding.
Yup, and I tested it. Manual retyping is about 2x as fast in this case.
However, the main strength of automated refactoring is their safety, both in terms of accurately executing the changes and in terms of evaluating pitfalls (some of the time).
When I talked to other people about chaining automated refactorings vs manually retyping, there was a preference for safety over speed, especially in legacy code that's more complex than this toy example.
Unless it's an extensive variable rename, my instincts are quite the opposite... I much prefer to do it myself - a tool like this just feels cumbersome and unnecessary
That's fair - the tooling value depends on personal preferences, experience, the complexity of & familiarity with the codebase, etc.