5 ms·

Yes! I’ve seen this myself, folks moving back into development after years or decades.

• beaker52 10mo ago
  Only it’s a bit like me getting back into cooking because I described the dish I want to a trainee cook.
  • CuriouslyC 10mo ago
    The head chefs at most restaurants delegate the majority of details of dishes to their kitchen staff, then critique and refine.
  • elliotbnvl 10mo ago
    As long as you get the dish you want when before you couldn’t have it — who cares?
    • beaker52 10mo ago
      Sure, as long as you don’t expect me to digest it, live with it, and crap it out for you, I see no problem with it.
      • elliotbnvl 10mo ago
        My expectations don’t change whether or not I’m using AI, and neither do my standards. Whether or not you use my software is up to you.
      • peteforde 10mo ago
        So you're saying that if you go to any famous restaurant and the famous face of the restaurant isn't personally preparing your dinner with their hands and singular attention, you are disappointed. Got it.
  • maplethorpe 10mo ago
    Isn't that still considered cooking? If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did cook it.
    • krapp 10mo ago
      > If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did "cook" it. The person who actually cooked it cooked it. Being the "catalyst" doesn't make you the creator, nor does it mean you get to claim that you did the work. Otherwise you could say you "cooked a meal" every time you went to MacDonald's.
      • elliotbnvl 10mo ago
        Why is the head chef called the head chef, then? He doesn’t “cook”.
        • beaker52 10mo ago
          The difference is that the head chef can cook very well and could do a better job of the dish than the trainee.
        • 9rx 10mo ago
          To differentiate him from the "cook", which is what we call those who carry out the actual act of cooking.
          • elliotbnvl 10mo ago
            Well, don’t go around calling me a compiler!
            • 9rx 10mo ago
              If that's what you do, then the name is perfectly apt. Why shy away from what you are?
  • 9rx 10mo ago
    Flipping toggle switches went out of fashion many, many, many years ago. We've been describing to trainees (compilers) the dish we want for longer than most on HN have been alive.
    • beaker52 10mo ago
      Actually, we’ve been formally declaring the logic of programs to compilers, which is something very different.
      • 9rx 10mo ago
        The only difference is that newer languages have figured out how to remove a lot of the boilerplate.
        • deleted 10mo ago
          [deleted]
      • beaker52 10mo ago
        (Replying to myself because hn) That’s not the only difference at all. A good use of an LLM might be to ask it what the difference between using an LLM and writing code for a compiler is.
        • 9rx 10mo ago
          Equally a good use for a legacy compiler that compiles a legacy language. Granted, you are going to have to write a lot more boilerplate to see it function (that being the difference, after all), but the outcome will be the same either way. It's all just 1s and 0s at the end of the day.
          • beaker52 10mo ago
            Sorry friend, if you can’t identify the important differences between a compiler and an LLM, either intentionally or unintentionally (I can’t tell), then I must question the value of whatever you have to say on the topic.
  • simonw 10mo ago
    Depends on how you're using the LLMs. It can also be like having someone else around to chop the onions, wash the pans and find the ingredients when you need them.
  • peteforde 10mo ago
    This approach seems to have worked out for both Warhol and Chihuly.
  • esafak 10mo ago
    Are you even cooking if you did not collect your own ingredients and forge your own tools??
• imiric 10mo ago
  They're not moving back into development. They're adopting a new approach of producing software, which has nothing to do with the work that software developers do. It's likely that they "left" the field because they were more interested in other roles, which is fine. So now that we have tools that promise to offload the work a software developer does, there are more people interested in simply producing software, and skipping all of that "busy work". The idea that this is the same as software development is akin to thinking that assembling IKEA furniture makes you a carpenter.
  • bitwize 10mo ago
    It's called being a systems analyst or product manager. Upskill into these roles (while still accepting individual contributor pay) or get left behind.
    • imiric 10mo ago
      I'm sorry, "upskill"? The roles you mentioned don't require any more advanced skills than those required for software development—just a different set of skills. And an IC is not "left behind" if those roles don't interest them. What a ridiculous thing to say. A systems analyst or product manager is not a natural progression for someone who enjoys software development.
    • pianopatrick 10mo ago
      Do you see any reason why AI and software will not soon take over system analyst or product manager roles? If we can go from natural language prompt to working code, it seems like not too big of a step to set up a system that goes straight from user feedback to code changes.
  • simonw 10mo ago
    That IKEA analogy is pretty good, because plenty of people use IKEA furniture to solve the "I need a bookshelf" problem - and often enjoy the process - without feeling like they should call themselves a carpenter. I bet there are professional carpenters out there who occasionally assemble an IKEA bookshelf because they need something quick and don't want to spend hours building one themselves from scratch.