Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
1–10 of 400 posts
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#2Funny article, but it seems that the author did not get the "Definition of Done" memo.
While...
> Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
...it was also never the job that needed to get done. We wanted to put well working functionality in the hands of users, in an extendible way (so we could add more features later without too much hassle).
If lines of code were the metric of success (like "deal value" is for sales) we would incentivize developers for lines of code written.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#3Funny article, but it seems that the author did not get the "Definition of Done" memo. While... > Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck ...it was also never the job that needed to get done. We wanted to put well working functionality in the hands of users, in an extendible way (so we could add more features later without too much hassle). If lines of code were the metric of success (like "deal value" is for sales) we…
We used to. Then we went though a phase of 'rockstar' developers who would spend their time on the fledgling social media sites musing on how their real value was measured in lines of code removed.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#4TBH, I feel like the biggest help Cursor gives me is with understanding large-ish legacy codebases. It's an excellent (& active) "rubber duck". So I'm not sure the argument holds - LLMs don't just write code.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#5Funny article, but it seems that the author did not get the "Definition of Done" memo. While... > Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck ...it was also never the job that needed to get done. We wanted to put well working functionality in the hands of users, in an extendible way (so we could add more features later without too much hassle). If lines of code were the metric of success (like "deal value" is for sales) we…
This article nowhere suggests that lines of code is something to be maximized.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#6Was anyone claiming it is the bottleneck? Seems like a straw man.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#7I dont think the authors comments are without merit. My experience has shown me issues are usually more upfront and after the fact.
Either the bottleneck between product organizations and engineering on getting decent requirements to know what to build and engineering teams being unwilling to start until they have every I dotted and T crossed.
The backend of the problem is that already most of the code e see written is poorly documented across the spectrum. How many commit messages have we seen of "wip" for instance? Or you go to a repository and the Readme is empty?
So the real danger is the stack overflow effect on steroids. It's not just a block of code that was put in that wasn't understood, its now entire projects, and there's little to no documentation to explain what was done or why decisions were made.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#8The article misses the point that LLMs are not removing the bottleneck of writing code for people who know how to write code. It's removing this bottleneck for everyone else.
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#9Was anyone claiming it is the bottleneck? Seems like a straw man.
I have seen it being claimed many times; especially here on hn. Context is usually optimized coding experience with respect to keyboard options and editors (vim/emacs vs modern IDEs).
Re: Writing Code Was Never the Bottleneck
#10TBH, I feel like the biggest help Cursor gives me is with understanding large-ish legacy codebases. It's an excellent (& active) "rubber duck". So I'm not sure the argument holds - LLMs don't just write code.
I'm not having the same positive experience on a >25yo insanely large and codebase built with questionable engineering practices