2 ms·

It is still an unknown whether an unqualified increase in productivity in the long-term for software engineering is a given.

qarl 17d ago
Really? OK - then let me stand up and vouch that I am at least 20X more productive with AI.
- dermacentor 17d ago
  In the long term.
  - qarl 17d ago
    Fair enough - it will take some time before the science comes back. But I feel the need to point out - the goalposts for "does AI work" shift daily.
- tom_ 17d ago
  In the long term, it'll be at least be the year 2030. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
- adamddev1 17d ago
  Would I be wrong to assume that you are building end-user applications? If people use AI for libraries, OSs, and mission critical software, the apparent productivity gains would have to be weighed against the reliability and performance hits that bubble up to the things that are built on them and rely on them.
  - qarl 17d ago
    In my experience - a robust testing harness will get you the safety you need. And most software you describe has such testing. I think the Bun port is a great example where testing enabled a very successful implementation. (Both the original tests themselves and runtime comparisons to the previous implementation.)
    - adamddev1 17d ago
      Testing is an extremely inadequate measure of reliability and robustness.
      - qarl 17d ago
        You understand that robust testing can, should, and often does test directly for reliability and robustness, right?
        adamddev1 17d ago
        Yes of course, but you also understand that as Dijkstra said "tests cannot show the absence of bugs." Tests can show you problems, if you can find them, but they cannot show that there are no problems. Property based testing or fuzzing gets your more coverage, and is a good step, but it is still nothing compared to proving things or understanding how something is built and that it is solid. Testing works towards checking for reliability and robustness, but often it's only 10% (?) of the job.
        qarl 17d ago
        Well, yes, I understand that testing does not create a provably correct solution. But I'd love to hear the source of your "extremely inadequate" or your "10%" claims. I mean - there is a reason why it's used extensively in software engineering - right? Or don't you see value in that, either? I'm curious - is there any data on the Bun port error rate? I think that would be very indicative of how successful or not the testing is.

qarl 17d ago

Really? OK - then let me stand up and vouch that I am at least 20X more productive with AI.

dermacentor 17d ago
In the long term.
- qarl 17d ago
  Fair enough - it will take some time before the science comes back. But I feel the need to point out - the goalposts for "does AI work" shift daily.
tom_ 17d ago
In the long term, it'll be at least be the year 2030. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
adamddev1 17d ago
Would I be wrong to assume that you are building end-user applications? If people use AI for libraries, OSs, and mission critical software, the apparent productivity gains would have to be weighed against the reliability and performance hits that bubble up to the things that are built on them and rely on them.
- qarl 17d ago
  In my experience - a robust testing harness will get you the safety you need. And most software you describe has such testing. I think the Bun port is a great example where testing enabled a very successful implementation. (Both the original tests themselves and runtime comparisons to the previous implementation.)
  - adamddev1 17d ago
    Testing is an extremely inadequate measure of reliability and robustness.
    - qarl 17d ago
      You understand that robust testing can, should, and often does test directly for reliability and robustness, right?
      - adamddev1 17d ago
        Yes of course, but you also understand that as Dijkstra said "tests cannot show the absence of bugs." Tests can show you problems, if you can find them, but they cannot show that there are no problems. Property based testing or fuzzing gets your more coverage, and is a good step, but it is still nothing compared to proving things or understanding how something is built and that it is solid. Testing works towards checking for reliability and robustness, but often it's only 10% (?) of the job.
        qarl 17d ago
        Well, yes, I understand that testing does not create a provably correct solution. But I'd love to hear the source of your "extremely inadequate" or your "10%" claims. I mean - there is a reason why it's used extensively in software engineering - right? Or don't you see value in that, either? I'm curious - is there any data on the Bun port error rate? I think that would be very indicative of how successful or not the testing is.