4 ms·

> now that LLMs removed most of the fun of programming Never understood this, was the "most of the fun of programming" the literal typing for you? For me it wa

> now that LLMs removed most of the fun of programming Never understood this, was the "most of the fun of programming" the literal typing for you? For me it was about solving problems and building things, and I get to do that more now than before, and without all the literal typing.

functionmouse 3mo ago
[flagged]
- embedding-shape 3mo ago
  > You would know this if you had any idea what actually goes into it Goes into what? Into typing code or into creating LLMs? Overall I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, nor why you feel bad about it. Mind explaining to a simpleton like me with simpler words and concepts?
  - realo 3mo ago
    I understand what he means. Software can be about the beauty in an algorithm, the elegance of an implementation. This is very similar to the type of beauty and elegance one finds in Mathematics. For many, writing software is more about crafting a beautiful design than typing lines of code. Getting things done is not about crafting, though (although crafting IS about getting something done). Thus the big clash when suddenly you can get things done well enough, without the craft part, with LLMs. Even if beauty and elegance are in there, most would not see it, because most do not want to review "LLM slop". They get things done.
    - embedding-shape 3mo ago
      > For many, writing software is more about crafting a beautiful design than typing lines of code. Yes, I count myself as one of these people, hence not caring much about the actual typing part. > Getting things done is not about crafting, though (although crafting IS about getting something done). I'd say it is, I like getting things done, hence I care about high quality code and proper design/architecture of the software itself and its concepts. Without caring about those things, you can "get things done" initially but as the thing grows, it gets slower and more complex. I like when "get things done" is applicable over years and as the software grows, then you need to carefully deliberate about almost every change and be vigilant about the design and architecture. > Thus the big clash when suddenly you can get things done well enough, without the craft part, with LLMs. Even if beauty and elegance are in there, most would not see it, because most do not want to review "LLM slop". Right, but no one is forcing you to go down that path. You can tell the LLM "Build a calculator" or you can come up with the design then tell the LLM to implement the design exactly, the choice is up to you. Since I care about the abstractions, design and cohesive architecture, I do the latter, and if you too do not care about the typing but the crafting, I'd advise people to also make that latter choice instead of the first.
      - realo 3mo ago
        I agree, but would add that maintability is , and always has been , a hallmark of quality software. LLM spaghetti code is unacceptable. LLM code with a complex pile of overlayed abstractions only someone with a PhD in Software Engineering can debug or even get to compile years later when public APIs change is also unacceptable. Same thing with human engineered software abstractions. But I get you. Human directed AI is the only way to go ... for now ...
- jmye 3mo ago
  [dead]
alabhyajindal 3mo ago
Did solutions to problems just pop into your head when you were programming before LLMs? Did you not pause and think about the code you were writing before?
- embedding-shape 3mo ago
  Most of the time by the time I reach the problem, the solution already been thought of, yeah. The literal typing and editing was behind compared to where my mind wanted to go I suppose. But also I spend long time considering the design/architecture before even attempting to write the code, so most of the time when I was literally typing code I'd know pretty much how it should be. Unknowns-unknowns being explored as separate prototypes before solidifying on any design choices, and so on.
  - t-3 3mo ago
    I think you just have a much narrower definition of programming. Others seem to be including the "long time considering the design/architecture before even attempting to write the code" in the programming, while you are only counting the time spent at the computer. You both agree much more thinking time than typing time is involved, just not that thinking about programming counts as programming.
dgellow 3mo ago
I reject the idea that programming is „just typing“, so we are very unlikely to understand each others. Writing the code and thinking about the exact logic you want to apply and all its implications are part of the same problem solving process in my mind. You can for sure plan things at a different layer of abstraction but putting things together in code is a very satisfying and IMHO is the actual building part of the job. It’s full of decision making and thinking. LLMs move me away from the implementation, which is more a managerial role, something I personally have zero interest in.
- embedding-shape 3mo ago
  > I reject the idea that programming is „just typing“, so we are very unlikely to understand each others. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I think programming is just typing. For me "programming" is the whole activity of creating software with code, you can do programming without the literal action of typing. > Writing the code and thinking about the exact logic you want to apply and all its implications are part of the same problem solving process in my mind. That's really interesting perspective to me, as these two activities for me are two completely things, and "thinking about the exact logic" happens way before I actually write any code at all, sometimes weeks/months even. > putting things together in code is a very satisfying and IMHO is the actual building part of the job. I agree that it's satisfying, but I guess "putting things together in code" still for me is more about being able to mash two concepts together in an elegant way, and none of that actually requires actual typing still. > LLMs move me away from the implementation, which is more a managerial role, something I personally have zero interest in. This is also interesting, because it feels like LLMs give me the opportunity to do more implementation, and not get stuck in the minutia so much, but rather focus on how the design and architecture actually fits together. Refactoring no longer is "I want to but also I don't want to spend the time nor get stuck in more rabbit-holes", so being able to focus on architecture/design more feels like it lets me care more about the implementation than before.
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    I’m just wondering why it’s bothersome that someone else doesn’t like coding with LLMs. Maybe they just like doing it the old fashioned way. You can both exist. Unless you’re getting a commission to sell LLMs to people I struggle to understand what you’re trying to achieve.
dominotw 3mo ago
programming is thinking while typing. its not like llm think, chill, think. very unatural.
- t-3 3mo ago
  Thinking while typing? Can you just keep generate code at typing speed? I spend a lot more time thinking than typing, and my most productive days are usually when I throw out a heap of code and replace it with a few highly factored functions.
  - wildzzz 3mo ago
    While I'm typing, I'm not just thinking about which keys to hit. I'm thinking about how I'm using a function and what the inputs and outputs are. I'm debugging in my head, I may realize the code isn't going to do what I thought it would. Or I'm realizing that what I'm doing isn't going to scale and that I need a more rigorous approach. Often, I'm thinking "wow I'm going to have to type this same block a bunch of times, I should make a new method/function to handle this." With code, I'm not planning everything down to the finest detail before I start writing. I know what I ultimately want my code to do but there are many unknowns I hadn't considered. Coding with an LLM is different depending on how you use it. When I'm using code completion, that's usually just helping me prevent syntax errors or to write an efficient snippet of code without having to check docs. But when I tell Claude "I want a web app that does xyz" and it creates it whole-cloth, that takes away the challenge of learning something new and building. I'm not a web developer and anything I could create is going to take me a long time to make (and it probably won't work well or look good) but Claude cranks it out with ease. I get to play software project manager and let the expert do the technical work. It's kinda fun being able to quickly get resulrs. Rather than debugging individual lines of code and thinking about the best way to implement code, I get to test features and think about better ways for the overall system to operate.
    - dgellow 3mo ago
      That’s a very nice way to put it, thanks for that comment
20after4 3mo ago
Literally typing is definitely part of the fun for me. I’m a mechanical keyboard nerd though so that might explain a lot. Beyond the typing though, I find enjoyment in perfecting the structure of the code, thinking deeply about how the pieces fit together. I enjoy the process of iteratively refining the code so that it clearly represents the program using the optimal level of abstraction and minimizes superfluous code/syntax. I find that using an LLM eliminates all of this and produces code that lacks all of the elegance and readability that I aspire to in my own code.
lelanthran 3mo ago
> Never understood this, was the "most of the fun of programming" the literal typing for you? For me it was about solving problems and building things, and I get to do that more now than before, and without all the literal typing. Your take is so reductionist it's hard to believe you actually like to solve problems.
mschuster91 3mo ago
> For me it was about solving problems and building things, and I get to do that more now than before, and without all the literal typing. The problem at least I have is... when something goes wrong, often enough even you as the original author / LLM slave-driver have no idea what is going on where, and completely forget trying to dig into someone else's pile of vibe-coded garbage. For every single problem you now are completely beholden to the AI agent.
PunchyHamster 3mo ago
The LLM tempts to just write the thing you want to write with just few prompts. Some people fall to that temptation instead of using LLM to just do the menial stuff and do the fun stuff themselves.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

functionmouse 3mo ago

[flagged]

embedding-shape 3mo ago
> You would know this if you had any idea what actually goes into it Goes into what? Into typing code or into creating LLMs? Overall I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, nor why you feel bad about it. Mind explaining to a simpleton like me with simpler words and concepts?
- realo 3mo ago
  I understand what he means. Software can be about the beauty in an algorithm, the elegance of an implementation. This is very similar to the type of beauty and elegance one finds in Mathematics. For many, writing software is more about crafting a beautiful design than typing lines of code. Getting things done is not about crafting, though (although crafting IS about getting something done). Thus the big clash when suddenly you can get things done well enough, without the craft part, with LLMs. Even if beauty and elegance are in there, most would not see it, because most do not want to review "LLM slop". They get things done.
  - embedding-shape 3mo ago
    > For many, writing software is more about crafting a beautiful design than typing lines of code. Yes, I count myself as one of these people, hence not caring much about the actual typing part. > Getting things done is not about crafting, though (although crafting IS about getting something done). I'd say it is, I like getting things done, hence I care about high quality code and proper design/architecture of the software itself and its concepts. Without caring about those things, you can "get things done" initially but as the thing grows, it gets slower and more complex. I like when "get things done" is applicable over years and as the software grows, then you need to carefully deliberate about almost every change and be vigilant about the design and architecture. > Thus the big clash when suddenly you can get things done well enough, without the craft part, with LLMs. Even if beauty and elegance are in there, most would not see it, because most do not want to review "LLM slop". Right, but no one is forcing you to go down that path. You can tell the LLM "Build a calculator" or you can come up with the design then tell the LLM to implement the design exactly, the choice is up to you. Since I care about the abstractions, design and cohesive architecture, I do the latter, and if you too do not care about the typing but the crafting, I'd advise people to also make that latter choice instead of the first.
    - realo 3mo ago
      I agree, but would add that maintability is , and always has been , a hallmark of quality software. LLM spaghetti code is unacceptable. LLM code with a complex pile of overlayed abstractions only someone with a PhD in Software Engineering can debug or even get to compile years later when public APIs change is also unacceptable. Same thing with human engineered software abstractions. But I get you. Human directed AI is the only way to go ... for now ...
jmye 3mo ago
[dead]

alabhyajindal 3mo ago

Did solutions to problems just pop into your head when you were programming before LLMs? Did you not pause and think about the code you were writing before?

embedding-shape 3mo ago
Most of the time by the time I reach the problem, the solution already been thought of, yeah. The literal typing and editing was behind compared to where my mind wanted to go I suppose. But also I spend long time considering the design/architecture before even attempting to write the code, so most of the time when I was literally typing code I'd know pretty much how it should be. Unknowns-unknowns being explored as separate prototypes before solidifying on any design choices, and so on.
- t-3 3mo ago
  I think you just have a much narrower definition of programming. Others seem to be including the "long time considering the design/architecture before even attempting to write the code" in the programming, while you are only counting the time spent at the computer. You both agree much more thinking time than typing time is involved, just not that thinking about programming counts as programming.

dgellow 3mo ago

I reject the idea that programming is „just typing“, so we are very unlikely to understand each others. Writing the code and thinking about the exact logic you want to apply and all its implications are part of the same problem solving process in my mind. You can for sure plan things at a different layer of abstraction but putting things together in code is a very satisfying and IMHO is the actual building part of the job. It’s full of decision making and thinking. LLMs move me away from the implementation, which is more a managerial role, something I personally have zero interest in.

embedding-shape 3mo ago
> I reject the idea that programming is „just typing“, so we are very unlikely to understand each others. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I think programming is just typing. For me "programming" is the whole activity of creating software with code, you can do programming without the literal action of typing. > Writing the code and thinking about the exact logic you want to apply and all its implications are part of the same problem solving process in my mind. That's really interesting perspective to me, as these two activities for me are two completely things, and "thinking about the exact logic" happens way before I actually write any code at all, sometimes weeks/months even. > putting things together in code is a very satisfying and IMHO is the actual building part of the job. I agree that it's satisfying, but I guess "putting things together in code" still for me is more about being able to mash two concepts together in an elegant way, and none of that actually requires actual typing still. > LLMs move me away from the implementation, which is more a managerial role, something I personally have zero interest in. This is also interesting, because it feels like LLMs give me the opportunity to do more implementation, and not get stuck in the minutia so much, but rather focus on how the design and architecture actually fits together. Refactoring no longer is "I want to but also I don't want to spend the time nor get stuck in more rabbit-holes", so being able to focus on architecture/design more feels like it lets me care more about the implementation than before.
- Grombobulous 3mo ago
  I’m just wondering why it’s bothersome that someone else doesn’t like coding with LLMs. Maybe they just like doing it the old fashioned way. You can both exist. Unless you’re getting a commission to sell LLMs to people I struggle to understand what you’re trying to achieve.

dominotw 3mo ago

programming is thinking while typing. its not like llm think, chill, think. very unatural.

t-3 3mo ago
Thinking while typing? Can you just keep generate code at typing speed? I spend a lot more time thinking than typing, and my most productive days are usually when I throw out a heap of code and replace it with a few highly factored functions.
- wildzzz 3mo ago
  While I'm typing, I'm not just thinking about which keys to hit. I'm thinking about how I'm using a function and what the inputs and outputs are. I'm debugging in my head, I may realize the code isn't going to do what I thought it would. Or I'm realizing that what I'm doing isn't going to scale and that I need a more rigorous approach. Often, I'm thinking "wow I'm going to have to type this same block a bunch of times, I should make a new method/function to handle this." With code, I'm not planning everything down to the finest detail before I start writing. I know what I ultimately want my code to do but there are many unknowns I hadn't considered. Coding with an LLM is different depending on how you use it. When I'm using code completion, that's usually just helping me prevent syntax errors or to write an efficient snippet of code without having to check docs. But when I tell Claude "I want a web app that does xyz" and it creates it whole-cloth, that takes away the challenge of learning something new and building. I'm not a web developer and anything I could create is going to take me a long time to make (and it probably won't work well or look good) but Claude cranks it out with ease. I get to play software project manager and let the expert do the technical work. It's kinda fun being able to quickly get resulrs. Rather than debugging individual lines of code and thinking about the best way to implement code, I get to test features and think about better ways for the overall system to operate.
  - dgellow 3mo ago
    That’s a very nice way to put it, thanks for that comment

20after4 3mo ago

Literally typing is definitely part of the fun for me. I’m a mechanical keyboard nerd though so that might explain a lot. Beyond the typing though, I find enjoyment in perfecting the structure of the code, thinking deeply about how the pieces fit together. I enjoy the process of iteratively refining the code so that it clearly represents the program using the optimal level of abstraction and minimizes superfluous code/syntax. I find that using an LLM eliminates all of this and produces code that lacks all of the elegance and readability that I aspire to in my own code.

lelanthran 3mo ago

> Never understood this, was the "most of the fun of programming" the literal typing for you? For me it was about solving problems and building things, and I get to do that more now than before, and without all the literal typing. Your take is so reductionist it's hard to believe you actually like to solve problems.

mschuster91 3mo ago

> For me it was about solving problems and building things, and I get to do that more now than before, and without all the literal typing. The problem at least I have is... when something goes wrong, often enough even you as the original author / LLM slave-driver have no idea what is going on where, and completely forget trying to dig into someone else's pile of vibe-coded garbage. For every single problem you now are completely beholden to the AI agent.

PunchyHamster 3mo ago

The LLM tempts to just write the thing you want to write with just few prompts. Some people fall to that temptation instead of using LLM to just do the menial stuff and do the fun stuff themselves.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]