3 ms·
Why? In 3 years time this won't be how these tools work. So it feels like you're saying we should invest time in something that doesn't work and will be redund
by mattmanser 1y ago
Why?
In 3 years time this won't be how these tools work. So it feels like you're saying we should invest time in something that doesn't work and will be redundant in 6 months.
Worse, your example is one that AI agents are notoriously bad at. Give them an error like that and they're more liable to break the existing functionality to fix it, after littering the code with tons of log statements.
When most of the time the actual fix is a silly little mistake that takes one line to fix.
- block_dagger 1y agoAnd in five years time all human engineers will be replaced. Why not just quit now?
- danielbln 1y agoEspecially odd for someone working in IT. If I'd only learn what doesn't change in a few years I'd have to find new work.
- mattmanser 1y agoYou misunderstood, there's no point learning it until it works. Don't bother until it's stable, picking up agentic coding will be trivial, because it has to be trivial to work well. To get agentic coding working 9 months ago you were massaging context, 6 months ago you'd be hooking up MCP servers, 3 months ago you'd be writing a gazillion .claude files. But all of that is utterly useless knowledge. That's not a transferrable skill. Using AI is much more effective if you write the code yourself, using AI as a supercharged Stack Overflow. A programmer + AI supercharged SO > A programmer + agentic coding So stop wasting your time learning how to get agentic coding working today, especially as the method keeps changing. There's no point learning the voodoo and rain-dancing of this iteration of today's coding agents. Try them, and until they work, discard them.