2 ms·

There are a lot of variables here. Small features I would say of course. Big features or the foundation of another app or codebase is a lot more risky. So it co

by proc0 12d ago

There are a lot of variables here. Small features I would say of course. Big features or the foundation of another app or codebase is a lot more risky. So it comes down to weighing the tradeoffs and risks. Even with small features I would say there is some kind of "entropy tax" that AI is adding, but of course this is yet another tradeoff. If companies find value in iterating quickly and then having to throw everything away just to iterate quickly again, then sure. Some businesses are setup to do this. Others not so much. You can't afford to write critical software over and over again. It has to be done right and having that extra care for a few days is the best tradeoff in these scenarios.

pmontra 12d ago
The sort of things that a human developer can do better than an AI is telling a founder that it is a bad idea to use country flags to select UI languages because languages have names and don't have flags and somebody will be pissed off by having to select the flag of some other country, maybe one they don't like much. I've been doing this today for the nth time probably because crappy sites spoiled a lot of people. I provided plenty of examples (check the EU web site locale selector) but it's not settled yet. An AI won't put much of a fight and will soon comply. I will too, I advise, customers put money on the table. Their privilege. The issue of critical software is not much different. The people with the money eventually decide how to spend them and what to prioritize.
- proc0 12d ago
  I think human developers can architect and design better software, and a good developer will probably develop features better as well. The issue is that "better" here is not immediately obvious. It might take a few months to realize the "way" the code was written is causing problems. Some people might never even realize this and just assume that's how all software is, it just breaks down over time (which is obviously not true, lots of decade old software and languages exist). But if the company is ok with rewriting their code every few months, then it makes no difference.

by proc0 12d ago

pmontra 12d ago

The sort of things that a human developer can do better than an AI is telling a founder that it is a bad idea to use country flags to select UI languages because languages have names and don't have flags and somebody will be pissed off by having to select the flag of some other country, maybe one they don't like much. I've been doing this today for the nth time probably because crappy sites spoiled a lot of people. I provided plenty of examples (check the EU web site locale selector) but it's not settled yet. An AI won't put much of a fight and will soon comply. I will too, I advise, customers put money on the table. Their privilege. The issue of critical software is not much different. The people with the money eventually decide how to spend them and what to prioritize.

proc0 12d ago
I think human developers can architect and design better software, and a good developer will probably develop features better as well. The issue is that "better" here is not immediately obvious. It might take a few months to realize the "way" the code was written is causing problems. Some people might never even realize this and just assume that's how all software is, it just breaks down over time (which is obviously not true, lots of decade old software and languages exist). But if the company is ok with rewriting their code every few months, then it makes no difference.