5 ms·

> I think ChatGPT is pretty neat but I was somewhat less impressed than everyone else is with the code generation. specifically on code generation, even if it

> I think ChatGPT is pretty neat but I was somewhat less impressed than everyone else is with the code generation. specifically on code generation, even if it could produce the correct code, it's basically faster horses: if you ask a programmer what they want, it's something to generate rote code for them so they don't have to write it... but that's the wrong problem. The problem is not that code is hard to write, or that we don't have enough code, it's that we have too much code and need to write code to solve previously solved problems in the first place. The future is platforms like Retool that reduce the need to write code, the future is businesses producing less code, the future is businesses producing code to solve new problems -- which an LLM can't do. If code has been written so many times that a language learning model can output it, why on earth are we still producing it (whether that's writing it or inducing a robot to output it)? Code generation might be a fun novelty for a little while but it's not the future, it'll be a distant memory soon enough.

CuriouslyC 4y ago
Code generation isn't going anywhere. No/low code platforms are great for some subset of users, but there will always be people who want total control to differentiate themselves, since differentiation is how you get customers in a sea of competitors. That total control requires code of some sort. Additionally, even if 95% are on platforms, the platforms are on code, and being able to rapidly iterate your platform compared with your competitors is how you're going to win. That means any tools that help you iterate with code faster will be invaluable.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  Code is a tool for businesses, and while it's a tool that can enable you to do anything you can imagine, it is an expensive tool for businesses to do anything they can imagine... and how many businesses need to be able to do anything they can imagine? The cost of code is huge, not only do you need competent software engineers to write the code, but first you need people who can translate business requirements into technical requirements... and then you're burdened with the costs of running, maintaining and iterating on that code as the business evolves. If you could cut all of that out and instead have the people defining the business requirements design the software (through the use of a no-code platform) your business would be orders of magnitude more efficient. Historically, magical all-in-one configurable platforms (like Salesforce) were unwieldy and required experts to operate them, but that's no longer the case. The world is becoming much more mature, and businesses can achieve so much without owning a single line of code. There'll always be technology that needs to be built, and code is a great tool for building technology, but most businesses don't need to build technology, they need to use technology. If you're opening your first grocery store, you rent a building, you don't hire architects and construction workers. The immaturity of technology has historically made that approach to business quite difficult, however, that's rapidly changing. As Software Engineers, we get caught up in believing that because you can do anything with code, code is the right tool. That's a misunderstanding of business, though: given the choice between 2 tools, 1 that can do 90% of what the business needs and 1 that can do 100% of what the business needs but costs an order of magnitude more and has far greater risk then any rational business would choose the former. If you spend much time interfacing with non-technical people in businesses, you'll often discover that they have an acrimonious relationship with technology in their business, because so much of the technology we build is caught up in the what and not the why. Code generation does not solve that problem, empowering non-technical people to own their business processes does. Code generation is a tool for 2000, not 2030. I would bet my career that in 2030, there'll be less code produced per year (human authored + generated) than there is today.
  - tombert 4y ago
    I agree. For example, I’ve often been annoyed at how dismissive engineers can be of something like Excel. Excel is an example of something that gives you something more or less adjacent to “real” code, with a substantially less steep learning curve. Can it do everything that C++ can? No, of course not, but I don’t think most businesses need all the power of C++.
    - nileshtrivedi 4y ago
      Both Excel and Google sheets have recently acquired the ability to create named functions (lambdas). So, the gap has suddenly reduced drastically: https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2022/08/named-functions-google-sheets.html https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2022/08/named-functi...
holoduke 4y ago
Well it can be useful. For example I wanted to implement a memory efficient binary search in c the other day. I asked gpt to generate it. Wasnt immediately working, but it gave me a good skeleton and it saved me some good hours of work.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

Code generation isn't going anywhere. No/low code platforms are great for some subset of users, but there will always be people who want total control to differentiate themselves, since differentiation is how you get customers in a sea of competitors. That total control requires code of some sort. Additionally, even if 95% are on platforms, the platforms are on code, and being able to rapidly iterate your platform compared with your competitors is how you're going to win. That means any tools that help you iterate with code faster will be invaluable.

phphphphp 4y ago
Code is a tool for businesses, and while it's a tool that can enable you to do anything you can imagine, it is an expensive tool for businesses to do anything they can imagine... and how many businesses need to be able to do anything they can imagine? The cost of code is huge, not only do you need competent software engineers to write the code, but first you need people who can translate business requirements into technical requirements... and then you're burdened with the costs of running, maintaining and iterating on that code as the business evolves. If you could cut all of that out and instead have the people defining the business requirements design the software (through the use of a no-code platform) your business would be orders of magnitude more efficient. Historically, magical all-in-one configurable platforms (like Salesforce) were unwieldy and required experts to operate them, but that's no longer the case. The world is becoming much more mature, and businesses can achieve so much without owning a single line of code. There'll always be technology that needs to be built, and code is a great tool for building technology, but most businesses don't need to build technology, they need to use technology. If you're opening your first grocery store, you rent a building, you don't hire architects and construction workers. The immaturity of technology has historically made that approach to business quite difficult, however, that's rapidly changing. As Software Engineers, we get caught up in believing that because you can do anything with code, code is the right tool. That's a misunderstanding of business, though: given the choice between 2 tools, 1 that can do 90% of what the business needs and 1 that can do 100% of what the business needs but costs an order of magnitude more and has far greater risk then any rational business would choose the former. If you spend much time interfacing with non-technical people in businesses, you'll often discover that they have an acrimonious relationship with technology in their business, because so much of the technology we build is caught up in the what and not the why. Code generation does not solve that problem, empowering non-technical people to own their business processes does. Code generation is a tool for 2000, not 2030. I would bet my career that in 2030, there'll be less code produced per year (human authored + generated) than there is today.
- tombert 4y ago
  I agree. For example, I’ve often been annoyed at how dismissive engineers can be of something like Excel. Excel is an example of something that gives you something more or less adjacent to “real” code, with a substantially less steep learning curve. Can it do everything that C++ can? No, of course not, but I don’t think most businesses need all the power of C++.
  - nileshtrivedi 4y ago
    Both Excel and Google sheets have recently acquired the ability to create named functions (lambdas). So, the gap has suddenly reduced drastically: https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2022/08/named-functions-google-sheets.html https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2022/08/named-functi...

holoduke 4y ago

Well it can be useful. For example I wanted to implement a memory efficient binary search in c the other day. I asked gpt to generate it. Wasnt immediately working, but it gave me a good skeleton and it saved me some good hours of work.