Crucible vs. GitHub Copilot

Crucible is well suited for situations where development teams follow a branch-based merge process, where new features or automation stories are introduced. It allows more seasoned team members to check newer team members' code to ensure standards are followed. It is probably less appropriate for smaller development teams or smaller projects, where code reviews can be less formal.

Incentivized

Copilit is fantastic at the following: 1. Solving simple, well-defined problems, such as implementing an algorithm, manipulating a data structure, or string manipulation and regex. 2. Implementing simple APIs that are mainly CRUD in nature, with moderate business logic inside them, which may involve some processing or passing the data through an algorithm. 3. Implementation of well-defined activities, such as implementing a connection to an Oracle DB using Hibernate or JDBC, or implementing boilerplate code for a backend service to listen to Kafka events. It is not that great when it comes to understanding and implementing code in a proprietary DSL. It struggles when implementing a major feature across a complex codebase. I believe developers should also adopt the trust-but-verify paradigm when expecting highly secure or regulated code from GitHub Copilot.

Incentivized

• Supports all major source control systems such as SVN and Git.
• Integration with Jira, Bamboo, Bitbucket, to have a complete end to end development experience.
• Easy to use UI/UX for reviewing code changes amongst different team members.

Incentivized

• Make code development faster and quicker.
• Helps write better code standards for projects.
• Provide the latest functions from the technology.
• Notifies about the deprecated functions.

Incentivized

• Crucible notifications of changes or updates to the code review are delayed as well as loading more source code is slow.
• Crucible is formatting could use improvements for viewing customization features. For instance, allowing the user to create a new tab per file to be reviewed would be nice to have.

Incentivized

• The only issue I faced is the context token size, it can be increase.
• Sometime with agent mode it takes too much time, which can be reduced but I understand it also depends on the complexity of the given task.

Incentivized

I feel that GitHub Copilot's overall usability is good due to its tight integration with Visual Studio and the workspace. However, developers expect greater ease of use, as there is a learning curve to realize productivity gains with the tool fully. I think there is room for improvement in GitHub Copilot's UI integration within Visual Studio.

Incentivized

Good support overall being an Atlassian product, with options including free/paid official support and community provided help.

Incentivized

Crucible was first on the market and the price is inexpensive. Crucible integrates with Jira Software and Atlassian Fisheye, providing the ability to track defects efficiently. SonarQube compares code to 'best standards' but not 'internal standards' and does not integrate to issue tracking. GitHub offers effective peer review, and has some integration with GitHub issues but costs more.

Incentivized

It is useful that copilot integrates so well with vscode, which is a very common IDE. I used Tabnine for a little while but it was not that intuitive, and did not seem as helpful as GitHub copilot was. I have enjoyed GitHub copilot a lot, especially the ease of hitting the tab key and seeing quick progress in my tasks.

Incentivized

• It has had a large ROI for our team, as it has helped us find issues sooner than we would have had we not reviewed things properly.

Incentivized

• Our ROI of the purchase of Copilot was met in less than a day. The timesave cannot be overstated
• Programmer boredom/dissatisfaction is down because of less repetetive crud work.

Incentivized