4 ms·

You’re fucked once you have to start getting AI to produce code for languages you’ve never actually worked in. You will have to write code to understand deeply

You’re fucked once you have to start getting AI to produce code for languages you’ve never actually worked in. You will have to write code to understand deeply what goes on at the low level. Without a solid understanding of the low level, you won’t truly know what optimal solutions look like on a high level. You will be flying by the seat of your pants, churning out code that works but has bad low level quirks sprinkled through the code base. The AI will say it’s fine, but you’re just building up shitty software. Feels like shit, run likes shit. Once someone new comes along who has worked with the language manually and can get AI to produce effective high quality code, you’ve lost competitive advantage. They can build way better versions of whatever you do. You’re finished. You’re a low quality engineer.

nilirl 4mo ago
Your argument has many, many leaps but I infer your point. The lack of attention does reduce the overall correctness of the system. But, and unfortunately, in most situations the loss of correctness is more than made up for by the speed gains. Unless you're building software that could kill someone, it's hard to reject the improved speed. The cost of delay is usually more damaging than the cost of incorrectness.
- deadbabe 4mo ago
  In real business, all important software is capable of killing someone or cause monetary loss through incorrectness or loss of functionality due to performance failures. If that doesn’t apply, you are just writing toy apps or front ends that are of no real significance, so yes you could carry on with incorrect code in those cases, but it’s not much of a career either.
  - nilirl 4mo ago
    Thank you for illuminating the realities of real business. It made me realize I've only had the misfortune of being employed at fake ones.
- timmytokyo 4mo ago
  >But, and unfortunately, in most situations the loss of correctness is more than made up for by the speed gains. Welcome to the future, where we can create buggy, broken software at a higher velocity than ever before!
  - thedevilslawyer 4mo ago
    Hey, only rose tinted glasses will tell you the older software was not buggy. Newer software is incredibly less buggy, and significantly more secure (ala fable/mythos passed). If course code craftsmen will feel the pinch of this change

nilirl 4mo ago

Your argument has many, many leaps but I infer your point. The lack of attention does reduce the overall correctness of the system. But, and unfortunately, in most situations the loss of correctness is more than made up for by the speed gains. Unless you're building software that could kill someone, it's hard to reject the improved speed. The cost of delay is usually more damaging than the cost of incorrectness.

deadbabe 4mo ago
In real business, all important software is capable of killing someone or cause monetary loss through incorrectness or loss of functionality due to performance failures. If that doesn’t apply, you are just writing toy apps or front ends that are of no real significance, so yes you could carry on with incorrect code in those cases, but it’s not much of a career either.
- nilirl 4mo ago
  Thank you for illuminating the realities of real business. It made me realize I've only had the misfortune of being employed at fake ones.
timmytokyo 4mo ago
>But, and unfortunately, in most situations the loss of correctness is more than made up for by the speed gains. Welcome to the future, where we can create buggy, broken software at a higher velocity than ever before!
- thedevilslawyer 4mo ago
  Hey, only rose tinted glasses will tell you the older software was not buggy. Newer software is incredibly less buggy, and significantly more secure (ala fable/mythos passed). If course code craftsmen will feel the pinch of this change