3 ms·
Extremely short term, yes. In the longer perspective, you'll lose most good developers if you don't allow them to evolve and have some fun along the way. And w
by codr7 2y ago
Extremely short term, yes.
In the longer perspective, you'll lose most good developers if you don't allow them to evolve and have some fun along the way. And without the developers, the source code is pretty much useless.
Humans are not machines.
- StableAlkyne 2y ago> you'll lose most good developers if you don't allow them to evolve and have some fun along the way That's actually something I really like about tools like GH Copilot! It gives me an excuse to try out something using a new language, but with less of the productivity dip that comes from chasing syntax or stdlib calls. It doesn't produce code that is as good as an expert in that language, but it's a really convenient set of training wheels So it becomes easier justify, at least with my current organization
- refulgentis 2y agoI think this is an interesting line of argument but its sort of reached its shallow depth on its 3rd exposition: it's not very complicated if I'm reading it correctly: "Theoretically, developers could eschew jobs that don't allow them to creatively reinterpret code as they translate it." It's a weak argument, because if you're translating even manually, it's not exactly the peak of creative self-expression. There's plenty of rote code that we'd all be happy to automate translation of --- I used this technique with GPT 3.0 to get math code translated across languages for Google's color library.
- codr7 2y agoYou'd have to take a step back to see it, I think. It's more like: in general, people will chose fun over not fun, given they have a choice. And good developers have PLENTY of choices.
- _f9cu 2y agoBusinesses see human and machine as resources.
- codr7 2y agoOnly the losers, mark my words.