4 ms·

I quit. The clankers won. I don't see any proof that software development is not dead. Software engineering is not, and it's much more than writing code, and i

I quit. The clankers won. I don't see any proof that software development is not dead. Software engineering is not, and it's much more than writing code, and it can be fun. But writing code is dead, there is no point of doing it if an LLM can output the same code 100x faster. Of course, architecture and operations stays in our hands (for now?). Initially I was very sceptic, first versions of ChatGPT or Claude were rather bad. I kept holding to a thought that it cannot get good. Then I've spend a few months evaluating them, if you know how to code, there is no point of coding anymore, just instruct an LLM to do something, verify, merge, repeat. It's an editor of some sorts, an editor where you enter a thought and get code as an output. Changes the whole scene.

zozbot234 7mo ago
LLM's don't really output the same code quality as a human, even on the smallest scale. It's not even close. Maybe you can guide them to refactor their slop up to human-written quality, but then you're still coding. You're just doing it by asking the computer to write something, instead of physically typing the whole thing out with a keyboard.
- ratmeadow 7mo ago
  Yeah I also keep thinking this. I don't see LLMs reliably producing code that is up to my standards. Granted I have high standards because I do take pride in producing high quality code (in all manner of metrics). A lot of the time the code works, unfortunately only for the most naive, mechanical definition of "works".
- phpnode 7mo ago
  This just isn’t true at all, with guidance and guard rails they produce much better code than the average developer does. They are only going to get better.
  - bigstrat2003 7mo ago
    That is completely false in my experience. I have never once seen an LLM produce code that would be acceptable. It certainly is worse than what a human can do.
    - saulpw 7mo ago
      I don't know what model you're using or how you're prompting it, but for me some 60-80% of the time the results require only a little bit of steering to be 'acceptable' (like at least what I would expect from a junior engineer and I'll approve the PR even though it's not quite how I would do it), some 30% of the time the results are pretty much what I would do, and some 10% of the time the results are better than what I would do ("huh, good idea, okay let's do it that way"). They're not perfect by any stretch but if they're being likened to slot machines for code, I'll take those odds almost every day.
    - phpnode 7mo ago
      Have you seen the kind of code an average developer writes? I agree that LLMs produce code that is less good than what a good developer could write, but most developers are not good developers, and even the good developer gets tired and must sleep eventually. Arguments against LLMs are like the old arguments against high level languages like C. People argued that the compiler wrote trash code, that humans could do better, that the costs weren't worth it. None of that mattered and it's the same story here.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
draxil 7mo ago
Useful tool, and if you're just scratching a small itch it's great. For any serious system you still need to understand and guide the code, and unless you do some of the coding.. You won't. It's just novelty right now is skewing our reasoning.
- therealdrag0 7mo ago
  It’s still faster to use AI to generate code while reading and guiding the code. Hell even long before LLms I would write python scripts to generate boilerplate code etc. LLM can be used similarly as a productivity boost in serious systems.
catlifeonmars 7mo ago
I think it’s really context dependent. I haven’t found LLMs to increase my productivity in coding in my field because the quality of the output matters much more than the quantity. I don’t think it’s the same across the board though, and there are plenty of domains where code generation is a force multiplier. Sometimes you need a chainsaw and sometimes you need a scalpel and in my own experience I have found that using coding agents as scalpels is not a very efficient use of my time. shrug
chasd00 7mo ago
i think these are great for people who already are senior developers with years of coding experience. I can use claudecode and then walk through the output and spot fix small mistakes or notice when it's going in the wrong direction and prompt it to fix. I think people without years of development experience using these tools can really screw themselves. The problem is every new grad is going to use claudecode right from the start without a decade of hand coding to develop that wisdom. on the other hand, i can't help but think about ASM coders lamenting C and especially C++. Also, god help you if you tell an embedded developer you use micropython instead of C. Maybe a current chapter is closing and a new one is beginning and my part was in the last chapter just like them. i'll end with saying i really like using AI for code, it's got me excited about technology again. So many projects that were out of reach due to time ( i have a family + stressful career ) are now back on the table like when i was in college with nothing but time on my hands.
- yuye 7mo ago
  >Also, god help you if you tell an embedded developer you use micropython instead of C. I will never not hate on Micropython. This doesn't come from a position of gatekeeping embedded software engineering. I just hate Python.
benjiro3000 7mo ago
[dead]
Anamon 7mo ago
If you're not just working on throw-away tools, revisit this sentiment every few months. Verifying generated code and writing code are not equivalent at all. You're replacing a builder's mindset with a supervisor's mindset, and the supervisor's workers are dumb. You're bound to end up with the same class of problems we always had when programmers were reviewing their own code or testing their own features. Blind spots. Fine for personal hobby tools or quick scripts. Not acceptable for business-critical software. The LLM hype seems to have made an entire profession forget the painfully learned lessons of the last 70 years.

zozbot234 7mo ago

LLM's don't really output the same code quality as a human, even on the smallest scale. It's not even close. Maybe you can guide them to refactor their slop up to human-written quality, but then you're still coding. You're just doing it by asking the computer to write something, instead of physically typing the whole thing out with a keyboard.

ratmeadow 7mo ago
Yeah I also keep thinking this. I don't see LLMs reliably producing code that is up to my standards. Granted I have high standards because I do take pride in producing high quality code (in all manner of metrics). A lot of the time the code works, unfortunately only for the most naive, mechanical definition of "works".
phpnode 7mo ago
This just isn’t true at all, with guidance and guard rails they produce much better code than the average developer does. They are only going to get better.
- bigstrat2003 7mo ago
  That is completely false in my experience. I have never once seen an LLM produce code that would be acceptable. It certainly is worse than what a human can do.
  - saulpw 7mo ago
    I don't know what model you're using or how you're prompting it, but for me some 60-80% of the time the results require only a little bit of steering to be 'acceptable' (like at least what I would expect from a junior engineer and I'll approve the PR even though it's not quite how I would do it), some 30% of the time the results are pretty much what I would do, and some 10% of the time the results are better than what I would do ("huh, good idea, okay let's do it that way"). They're not perfect by any stretch but if they're being likened to slot machines for code, I'll take those odds almost every day.
  - phpnode 7mo ago
    Have you seen the kind of code an average developer writes? I agree that LLMs produce code that is less good than what a good developer could write, but most developers are not good developers, and even the good developer gets tired and must sleep eventually. Arguments against LLMs are like the old arguments against high level languages like C. People argued that the compiler wrote trash code, that humans could do better, that the costs weren't worth it. None of that mattered and it's the same story here.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

draxil 7mo ago

Useful tool, and if you're just scratching a small itch it's great. For any serious system you still need to understand and guide the code, and unless you do some of the coding.. You won't. It's just novelty right now is skewing our reasoning.

therealdrag0 7mo ago
It’s still faster to use AI to generate code while reading and guiding the code. Hell even long before LLms I would write python scripts to generate boilerplate code etc. LLM can be used similarly as a productivity boost in serious systems.

catlifeonmars 7mo ago

I think it’s really context dependent. I haven’t found LLMs to increase my productivity in coding in my field because the quality of the output matters much more than the quantity. I don’t think it’s the same across the board though, and there are plenty of domains where code generation is a force multiplier. Sometimes you need a chainsaw and sometimes you need a scalpel and in my own experience I have found that using coding agents as scalpels is not a very efficient use of my time. shrug

chasd00 7mo ago

i think these are great for people who already are senior developers with years of coding experience. I can use claudecode and then walk through the output and spot fix small mistakes or notice when it's going in the wrong direction and prompt it to fix. I think people without years of development experience using these tools can really screw themselves. The problem is every new grad is going to use claudecode right from the start without a decade of hand coding to develop that wisdom. on the other hand, i can't help but think about ASM coders lamenting C and especially C++. Also, god help you if you tell an embedded developer you use micropython instead of C. Maybe a current chapter is closing and a new one is beginning and my part was in the last chapter just like them. i'll end with saying i really like using AI for code, it's got me excited about technology again. So many projects that were out of reach due to time ( i have a family + stressful career ) are now back on the table like when i was in college with nothing but time on my hands.

yuye 7mo ago
>Also, god help you if you tell an embedded developer you use micropython instead of C. I will never not hate on Micropython. This doesn't come from a position of gatekeeping embedded software engineering. I just hate Python.

benjiro3000 7mo ago

[dead]

Anamon 7mo ago

If you're not just working on throw-away tools, revisit this sentiment every few months. Verifying generated code and writing code are not equivalent at all. You're replacing a builder's mindset with a supervisor's mindset, and the supervisor's workers are dumb. You're bound to end up with the same class of problems we always had when programmers were reviewing their own code or testing their own features. Blind spots. Fine for personal hobby tools or quick scripts. Not acceptable for business-critical software. The LLM hype seems to have made an entire profession forget the painfully learned lessons of the last 70 years.