3 ms·
> The hard part is solving the problem appropriately. Implementing that solution in code once you have it is comparatively easy. I don't think this is true, ot
by disambiguation 6y ago
> The hard part is solving the problem appropriately. Implementing that solution in code once you have it is comparatively easy.
I don't think this is true, otherwise we would see a lot more business models where development is largely outsourced for a cheap price and in-house work is mainly solution architects producing technical documents.
the theory and the code are two ends of the same problem, which is why it's hard to separate them. having a developer that can do it end to end (translate a problem into code) is much better, even if at a premium.
as for AI and code generation, this just seems like the natural progression of high level languages. modern languages already do a lot of work to translate our simple human code into complex machine code.
- jusssi 6y ago> I don't think this is true, otherwise we would see a lot more business models where development is largely outsourced for a cheap price and in-house work is mainly solution architects producing technical documents. But we did see a lot of that. It was exactly what all that outsourcing to India was, before it got unfashionable again. The problem with the model wasn't that it would be too hard to produce code for the design, it was that you'd need a finished design to ship to the sweatshop. That rules out any sort of iterative development models, so you're stuck with a slow waterfall.