5 ms·

This is hallucination. Or maybe a sales pitch. If production bugs and the requirement to retain a workable code base don’t get us to write “good” code, then

This is hallucination. Or maybe a sales pitch. If production bugs and the requirement to retain a workable code base don’t get us to write “good” code, then nothing will. And at the current state of the art, “AI” will tend to make it worse.

zwnow 9mo ago
Shhhh the original poster is the CEO of an AI based company. I am sure there is no bias here. /s
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
stingraycharles 9mo ago
Yeah, test coverage isn't a replacement for good code. Worse yet, it may give you false confidence, especially if it's the AI that's writing the tests (which in practice very often is the case).
reedlaw 9mo ago
The first sentence is problematic: > For decades, we’ve all known what “good code” looks like. When relatively trivial concerns such as the ideal length of methods haven't achieved consensus, I doubt there can be any broadly accepted standard for software quality. There are plenty of metrics such as test coverage, but anyone with experience could tell you how easy it is to game those and that enforcing arbitrary standards can even cause harm.
- tempodox 9mo ago
  I agree. Moreover, I submit that “good code” isn’t even a universal constant, but context-sensitive along several dimensions.
- deaux 9mo ago
  > When relatively trivial concerns such as the ideal length of methods haven't achieved consensus Is the consensus not that there isn't one? Surely that's the only consensus to reach? I don't see how there could possibly be an "ideal length", whatever you pick it'd be much too dogmatic.
  - reedlaw 9mo ago
    John Carmack's and Martin Fowler's coding style advice are diametrically opposed. Carmack advocates inlining complex code that is only used once. Fowler advocates extracting it with a good name to clarify intent. I'm not sure the two views can be reconciled except by noting that they address separate concerns. Carmack prioritizes visibility while Fowler prioritizes intent.
    - deaux 9mo ago
      With all due respect to these who as programmers are on a whole different dimension than me.. this seems like a case where both either their words were taken out of context, or one of the millions of cases of brilliant people hyperfixating on their particular domain and mistakenly extrapolating that to everywhere. Their advice could well be right for the particular type of code each of them worked on! But taking them as general rules for coding makes as much sense as applying advice for painting a bridge to painting the Mona Lisa. Seriously, try to come up with a single piece of advice about programming style that applies to every domain. The closest one I can think of is "give descriptive name to your variables", and even that doesn't apply to lots of code written to this very day. It's impossible. Software in 2025 is far too varied for any of that to make sense, and it has been for many decades.

zwnow 9mo ago

Shhhh the original poster is the CEO of an AI based company. I am sure there is no bias here. /s

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

stingraycharles 9mo ago

Yeah, test coverage isn't a replacement for good code. Worse yet, it may give you false confidence, especially if it's the AI that's writing the tests (which in practice very often is the case).

reedlaw 9mo ago

The first sentence is problematic: > For decades, we’ve all known what “good code” looks like. When relatively trivial concerns such as the ideal length of methods haven't achieved consensus, I doubt there can be any broadly accepted standard for software quality. There are plenty of metrics such as test coverage, but anyone with experience could tell you how easy it is to game those and that enforcing arbitrary standards can even cause harm.

tempodox 9mo ago
I agree. Moreover, I submit that “good code” isn’t even a universal constant, but context-sensitive along several dimensions.
deaux 9mo ago
> When relatively trivial concerns such as the ideal length of methods haven't achieved consensus Is the consensus not that there isn't one? Surely that's the only consensus to reach? I don't see how there could possibly be an "ideal length", whatever you pick it'd be much too dogmatic.
- reedlaw 9mo ago
  John Carmack's and Martin Fowler's coding style advice are diametrically opposed. Carmack advocates inlining complex code that is only used once. Fowler advocates extracting it with a good name to clarify intent. I'm not sure the two views can be reconciled except by noting that they address separate concerns. Carmack prioritizes visibility while Fowler prioritizes intent.
  - deaux 9mo ago
    With all due respect to these who as programmers are on a whole different dimension than me.. this seems like a case where both either their words were taken out of context, or one of the millions of cases of brilliant people hyperfixating on their particular domain and mistakenly extrapolating that to everywhere. Their advice could well be right for the particular type of code each of them worked on! But taking them as general rules for coding makes as much sense as applying advice for painting a bridge to painting the Mona Lisa. Seriously, try to come up with a single piece of advice about programming style that applies to every domain. The closest one I can think of is "give descriptive name to your variables", and even that doesn't apply to lots of code written to this very day. It's impossible. Software in 2025 is far too varied for any of that to make sense, and it has been for many decades.