4 ms·

For people who like to tick boxes, which is essentially most of the above, AI is welcome. That includes managers. It still has nothing to do with software engi

by alrtkh 5mo ago

For people who like to tick boxes, which is essentially most of the above, AI is welcome. That includes managers. It still has nothing to do with software engineering. All good code was written by humans. AI took it, plagiarizes it, launders it and repackages it in a bloated form. Whenever I look deeply at an AI plagiarized mess, it looks like it is 90% there but in reality it is only 50%. Fixing the mess takes longer than writing it oneself.

zozbot234 5mo ago
The hard part of software engineering is turning a vague problem description into a set of box-ticking exercises. If ticking boxes became genuinely easier, the software engineering part is now a lot more valuable.
readitalready 5mo ago
No fixing the mess definitely does not take longer than writing it oneself. Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural and stylistic choices - and the AI agents will immediately repair them. It's about 1000x faster than a human code at repairing its own mess.
- applfanboysbgon 5mo ago
  > Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural If a linter could deterministically identify bad architecture, you wouldn't need an LLM, your linters could just write your code for you. The vibe coding takes are just getting more and more empty-headed...
  - hansmayer 5mo ago
    > If a linter could deterministically identify bad architecture, you wouldn't need an LLM, a) that's not what a linter is built for, its a tool with very specific role b) You must've never seen LLM expose secrets in plain text or use the most convoluted scenarios you can think of.
    - wilkystyle 5mo ago
      I think you missed the point of the person you are replying to.
  - readitalready 5mo ago
    Your custom linters don't check architectural design? linters statically check code and provide deterministic recommendations. LLMs are used to make judgement. I specifically write my linters for my project to make recommendations for LLMs. This is how you save on token usage, so your LLMS aren't wasting tokens on static analysis that a linter could do for free. That's at least how I make my linters.
peab 5mo ago
How can you say it has "nothing to do with software engineering" with a straight face? I think you might be in serious denial. Of course writing code isn't the only task of a software engineer, but it's an important one. There wouldn't be so much controversy if it wasn't the case
- zozbot234 5mo ago
  "Writing code" as a task of its own is called cowboy coding. It's neat that AI can do this now, but that has nothing to do with proper software engineering which always starts from a careful, human-led design.
  - peab 5mo ago
    "has nothing to do with proper software engineering" So you're saying software engineers don't write code? Just because there are other things that SWEs do, does not mean it has nothing to do with it. It's arguably a pretty important part. Would you really hire a software engineer who can't code?
    - shimman 5mo ago
      Writing code and copying the output of an LLM is absolutely not the same. You wouldn't call someone an author that takes LLM outputs and shoves it in a book. IDK why this distinction doesn't apply to devs too.
      - peab 5mo ago
        You call someone an author when they use a ghostwriter. They're giving inputs that are core to the output, even though they aren't doing all the writing. Same thing.
        shimman 5mo ago
        I can assure you a sizable amount of people in the writing community look down on "authors" that only use ghostwriters. Why do tech workers act shock that people hate this junk being force fed to them that they are now resorting to violence to reject said junk? You think telling humans with specialized crafts that they don't matter is good politics? Good grief.
philwelch 5mo ago
You’re reminding me a lot of those old assembly hackers who thought compilers were bullshit because they could hand-write better assembly. And I don’t mean that as an insult; those guys were probably right about their assembly code, just like an Amish craftsman will make better furniture than a factory in China. The problem is that the world needs more furniture and more software than skilled craftsmen can produce, and the skill gap between the craftsman and the mass production process is diminishing fast. We’re still going to have handwritten software, just like we still have handwritten assembly. It just won’t be the norm.

by alrtkh 5mo ago

zozbot234 5mo ago

The hard part of software engineering is turning a vague problem description into a set of box-ticking exercises. If ticking boxes became genuinely easier, the software engineering part is now a lot more valuable.

readitalready 5mo ago

No fixing the mess definitely does not take longer than writing it oneself. Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural and stylistic choices - and the AI agents will immediately repair them. It's about 1000x faster than a human code at repairing its own mess.

applfanboysbgon 5mo ago
> Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural If a linter could deterministically identify bad architecture, you wouldn't need an LLM, your linters could just write your code for you. The vibe coding takes are just getting more and more empty-headed...
- hansmayer 5mo ago
  > If a linter could deterministically identify bad architecture, you wouldn't need an LLM, a) that's not what a linter is built for, its a tool with very specific role b) You must've never seen LLM expose secrets in plain text or use the most convoluted scenarios you can think of.
  - wilkystyle 5mo ago
    I think you missed the point of the person you are replying to.
- readitalready 5mo ago
  Your custom linters don't check architectural design? linters statically check code and provide deterministic recommendations. LLMs are used to make judgement. I specifically write my linters for my project to make recommendations for LLMs. This is how you save on token usage, so your LLMS aren't wasting tokens on static analysis that a linter could do for free. That's at least how I make my linters.

peab 5mo ago

How can you say it has "nothing to do with software engineering" with a straight face? I think you might be in serious denial. Of course writing code isn't the only task of a software engineer, but it's an important one. There wouldn't be so much controversy if it wasn't the case

zozbot234 5mo ago
"Writing code" as a task of its own is called cowboy coding. It's neat that AI can do this now, but that has nothing to do with proper software engineering which always starts from a careful, human-led design.
- peab 5mo ago
  "has nothing to do with proper software engineering" So you're saying software engineers don't write code? Just because there are other things that SWEs do, does not mean it has nothing to do with it. It's arguably a pretty important part. Would you really hire a software engineer who can't code?
  - shimman 5mo ago
    Writing code and copying the output of an LLM is absolutely not the same. You wouldn't call someone an author that takes LLM outputs and shoves it in a book. IDK why this distinction doesn't apply to devs too.
    - peab 5mo ago
      You call someone an author when they use a ghostwriter. They're giving inputs that are core to the output, even though they aren't doing all the writing. Same thing.
      - shimman 5mo ago
        I can assure you a sizable amount of people in the writing community look down on "authors" that only use ghostwriters. Why do tech workers act shock that people hate this junk being force fed to them that they are now resorting to violence to reject said junk? You think telling humans with specialized crafts that they don't matter is good politics? Good grief.

philwelch 5mo ago

You’re reminding me a lot of those old assembly hackers who thought compilers were bullshit because they could hand-write better assembly. And I don’t mean that as an insult; those guys were probably right about their assembly code, just like an Amish craftsman will make better furniture than a factory in China. The problem is that the world needs more furniture and more software than skilled craftsmen can produce, and the skill gap between the craftsman and the mass production process is diminishing fast. We’re still going to have handwritten software, just like we still have handwritten assembly. It just won’t be the norm.