I've spent the last year testing AI coding assistants across different languages, frameworks, and team sizes. The hype is real, but so are the limitations. Here's what I've learned from actual daily use - not marketing demos.
The Current State: Beyond the Hype
GitHub Copilot isn't alone anymore. We've got Cursor, Claude Code, Codeium, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and dozens more. Each promises to 10x your productivity. The reality? More like 1.5-2x for most developers, but that's still significant.
The real value isn't in generating entire applications from prompts (that barely works). It's in the small, repetitive tasks that consume 30-40% of your day:
Writing boilerplate
Converting data structures
Writing tests
Refactoring similar patterns
Documentation
What Actually Works in Production
- Autocomplete on Steroids The best AI assistants predict your next 3-5 lines, not just the current one. When you're writing an API endpoint, they suggest the entire handler structure. When you start a test, they scaffold the setup and assertions. Real example from my workflow: javascript// I type this: async function fetchUserData(userId) {
// Copilot suggests:
const response = await fetch(/api/users/${userId});
if (!response.ok) {
throw new Error('Failed to fetch user data');
}
return response.json();
}
Is it perfect? No. Do I need to adjust it? Usually. Does it save me 2 minutes of typing? Absolutely.
- Test Generation That Doesn't Suck Most AI-generated tests are garbage - they test implementation, not behavior. But when paired with clear intent, modern assistants generate decent test scaffolds. What works: python# Prompt: "Write unit tests for the UserValidator class covering edge cases" # Result: Actually useful test structure with meaningful assertions What doesn't work: python# Prompt: "Write tests" # Result: 50 pointless tests that verify nothing Specificity matters more with AI than with human code reviews.
- Refactoring Assistance This is underrated. Select a function, ask to extract repeated logic or convert to a different pattern - it handles the mechanical work while you focus on design decisions. I used this to convert a 200-line React component from class-based to hooks. Took 10 minutes instead of an hour. Still needed review, but the grunt work was done. What Doesn't Work (Yet) Architecture and Design AI tools are terrible at system design. They don't understand your codebase's quirks, technical debt, or future scaling needs. They suggest generic patterns that might work in demos but fail in production. Don't ask AI:
"Design a microservices architecture for my app"
"How should I structure my database schema"
"What's the best way to handle authentication"
Do ask AI:
"Show me common approaches to rate limiting"
"What are trade-offs between JWT and session cookies"
"Examples of implementing retry logic"
Complex Debugging
AI assistants are surprisingly bad at debugging. They suggest fixes that work in isolation but break other things. They don't understand state across your codebase.
I've wasted more time following bad debugging suggestions than I've saved. For complex bugs, rubber duck debugging still wins.
Understanding Business Logic
This should be obvious, but AI can't understand your product requirements. It generates code that compiles but doesn't solve the actual problem.
I tested asking multiple AI assistants to implement a "fair queuing system." Every single one gave me basic FIFO. None asked about priority rules, user groups, or rate limits - all critical in our actual use case.
The Tools I Actually Use (and Why)
After testing 15+ AI coding assistants, here's what stayed in my workflow:
GitHub Copilot - Best autocomplete, great IDE integration. Worth the $10/month if you code 20+ hours per week.
Cursor - Best for refactoring and understanding existing code. The chat interface feels more natural than Copilot's inline suggestions.
Claude Code - Strongest at understanding context across multiple files. I use it for explaining legacy code and planning refactors.
Codeium - Free alternative to Copilot with surprisingly good suggestions. Lacks some polish but works well for side projects.
I don't use: Anything that requires uploading your entire codebase to external servers without clear data policies. Security > convenience.
Making AI Assistants Actually Useful
- Write Clear Comments AI uses your comments as context. Write what you're trying to do, not how: javascript// ❌ Bad: Loop through users // ✅ Good: Find all active users who haven't completed onboarding
- Name Things Well AI suggestions improve dramatically with descriptive names: javascript// ❌ Vague: function process(data) // ✅ Clear: function validateAndSanitizeUserInput(formData)
- Provide Examples Show AI what you want with an example, then ask for variations: python# Example pattern: def handle_user_login(username: str, password: str) -> LoginResult: # implementation
Now generate: handle_user_signup, handle_user_logout, handle_password_reset
- Review Everything This should be obvious, but I've seen production bugs from blindly accepting AI suggestions. Treat AI like a junior developer - helpful but needs supervision. The Controversial Take: AI Won't Replace You After a year of heavy AI coding assistant use, I'm more convinced than ever that software engineering is safe. Here's why: AI is pattern matching, not problem solving. It can write code, but it can't:
Understand vague requirements from non-technical stakeholders
Navigate organizational politics around technical decisions
Debug production issues with incomplete information
Make architectural trade-offs based on future uncertainty
Mentor junior developers
The developers I see getting the most value from AI aren't worried about replacement - they're using AI to eliminate boring work and focus on interesting problems.
Practical Setup Recommendations
For solo developers:
Start with GitHub Copilot (if budget allows) or Codeium (if not)
Use AI for boilerplate and tests
Keep it disabled for complex logic until you're comfortable
For teams:
Set clear policies on what AI can generate (docs yes, security-critical code no)
Review AI-generated code more carefully than human-written code
Track time saved vs bugs introduced - not all AI use is productive
For beginners:
Use AI to learn patterns, not to avoid learning
Type out AI suggestions manually to build muscle memory
Disable autocomplete when practicing fundamentals
Looking Forward
The next 12 months will bring:
Better context awareness across entire projects
Improved debugging capabilities
More specialized tools for specific frameworks
Tighter IDE integration
What won't change: AI will remain a tool, not a replacement. The best developers will be those who know when to use AI and when to think for themselves.
Try Before You Commit
Most AI coding assistants offer free trials. I recommend:
Test during actual work, not tutorials
Track time saved vs context switching cost
Pay attention to when you fight the tool vs when it helps
Compare at least 2-3 options before committing
I maintain detailed comparisons of AI coding tools if you want to see technical specs and pricing side-by-side.
The Bottom Line
AI coding assistants are genuinely useful in 2026. They're not magic, they won't write your app for you, but they will save you hours of tedious work.
Use them for:
✅ Boilerplate and repetitive code
✅ Test scaffolding
✅ Simple refactoring
✅ Documentation
✅ Learning new patterns
Don't use them for:
❌ Architecture decisions
❌ Complex debugging
❌ Business logic
❌ Security-critical code
❌ Learning fundamentals (if you're a beginner)
The developers winning with AI aren't the ones who blindly accept every suggestion. They're the ones who use AI to handle boring work while they focus on the interesting problems that actually require human judgment.
Start small, experiment, and figure out what works for your workflow. Just don't believe the hype - and definitely don't skip code review.
Mandy Brook tests and reviews AI development tools at CompareAITools.org. You can find detailed comparisons, testing methodologies, and hands-on reviews of 100+ AI tools for developers.
Top comments (0)