4 ms·

> trying different things until something works That sounds like an awful way of software design. Trial and error isn’t engineering but explains the current st

• seneca 1y ago
  Sure, and that is more my own clunky paraphrasing than anything the article states. Iterating and testing to find a fit for customers is the business/product side of software. How you execute on those iterations is engineering.
  • croes 1y ago
    But the business/product side is the shallow side, customers rarely care about what happens behind the curtain. And most customer needs are pretty similar in the backend
• thenanyu 1y ago
  Trying things and changing if it doesn’t work is the only way I know how to build software. What would you do? Don’t change?
  • croes 1y ago
    The question is, why doesn’t it work? Erroneous code, erroneous algorithm, missing feature in the underlying infrastructure? The effort it takes to implement a feature makes is more likely you think twice before you start. If the effort goes to zero, so does the thinking. We will turn from programmers to just LLM customers sooner or later. Because testing if it works can be done by none programmers
    • chii 1y ago
      > Because testing if it works can be done by none programmers like testing whether a building is structurally sound can just be done by the inhabitants!
• flail 1y ago
  In no part was that suggestion addressed to software design/architecture. It is telling that, while the article's theme is product management (and its relationship with the pace of development), that context is largely ignored in some comments. It's as if the article's scope was purely what happens within the IDE and/or AI agent of choice. The whole point is that the perspective necessarily should be broader. Otherwise, we make it a circular argument, really: development is a bottleneck of development. Well, hard to disagree on that.