Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

charitydotwtf.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 234 posts

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#31

Post by sublinear »

molsongolden wrote: post #22
msteffen wrote: post #15

I liked this article, and I see a lot of other commenters didn't, so I'll give my take: When starting on a new codebase, how do you make yourself into a helpful contributor as quickly as possible? I go straight for the humans and their human docs. What problem was the system originally built to solve? What was the original design, and what were its biggest problems? Who is currently using it? If you know these, readi…

I wonder if the reception is so variable due to differing exposure to 1) infra as code and 2) engineering teams that don't produce any artifacts outside of their code. > When starting on a new codebase, how do you make yourself into a helpful contributor as quickly as possible? I go straight for the humans and their human docs. What problem was the system originally built to solve? What was the original design, and w…

Talking to an LLM is often still a lower quality result than asking the lead engineer themselves or the collaborators they left behind. You're making a tradeoff between time taken and result quality.

Even the most AI-positive teams prefer human discussion when things get that tough. Given enough time, things will "click" for humans. LLMs don't work that way.

Even a team of all-new unfamiliar devs forced to study an old codebase will eventually figure out what it was about and pick up tons of nuance the LLM cannot. This is the nature of writing. It exists in a time and place beyond the pure literal text. Humans live in this context and can get into the headspace of the original dev(s).

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#32

Post by bilater »

If you ask a surgeon if you need surgery...

In general most developers are going to find themselves fighting incentives which will color their opinion. AI isn't there yet but if you are going to abase your whole world view on a point on a graph and not on the trajectory you are in for a bad time.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#33

Post by philbo »

trjordan wrote: post #27

> Those are not code problems. They are evaluation problems. > Code becomes precious when it is the only place knowledge lives. Reading AI code all day is _agonizing_. Just, a horrible way to live, and it melts people's brains at the moment you need them to be the most capable. Manual programming has this really productive and gratifying feedback loop, where you read the code, write the code, and fix it until it comp…

If a coworker dumped a 5k-line code review on you, you'd tell them to come back when it's broken down into smaller, reviewable chunks. Large dumps of code are basically unreviewable by humans, but it seems like a lot of people have forgotten about that when it comes to LLMs.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#34

Post by Quothling »

ryandvm wrote: post #24

It is now significantly harder to figure out who understands the systems and is using AI effectively and who doesn't know shit and is just slinging LLM copypasta around. Before 2025, the underperformers/coasters were at least relatively identifiable by the paucity of their contributions. Now all of the sudden every single engineer is filing PRs, code reviews, technical design documents, and every other artifact under…

I think it depends a little on how and where you work. In the energy industry of Europe where we are extremely regulated AI has been writing some excellent and maintainable code. Of course we can't do any of that CLEAN SOLID DRY stuff, or any abstraction and implicity really, and I imagine that AI would struggle with that. Though you have to wonder if any of those religions ever really worked when you consider that they've still failed to replace most COBOL systems 30 years later. Anyway, that's a different discussion and even Uncle Bob has moved on to functional programming.

I've yet to have Opus 4.8 fail me with defensive explict code. Often it'll write code that is better than what I might have done. I imagine it would be a nightmare to go through one of the OOP debug chains with implict error handling, but when every function has a runtime assertion which is basically the contract for how it is supposed to work and exactly what to do if it encounters a corrupt state, then things are just so much easier with AI.

I do agree with you on documentation. The amount we have has exploded in the post AI world. Which is a little ironic since the assertion is frankly what you'll need to know and not the 10 pages of prose the AI autogenerated in the shared loop (microsoft's terrible confluence). It is what it is though, and at least it's easier to meet EU compliance rules now, since those are more about the bureaucracy than actual security.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#35

Post by socketcluster »

This is why I built https://saasufy.com/ - Vibe coders shouldn't trust themselves with backend security. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to get right. There's a lot to think about;

- Schema validation with appropriate size limits on all relevant fields.

- Authentication.

- Access control.

- Backpressure management and rate limiting in case a (possibly malicious) user tries to perform too many computationally expensive actions in a short time.

- Ensuring that the actions of one user doesn't throttle another user which is connected to the same process/host, e.g. using async constructs to avoid freezing the main process.

- DDoS mitigation.

- Avoiding race conditions.

- Designing a good database schema, with well chosen indexes, with deterministic IDs/idempotency to avoid double-insertion scenarios. You don't want to be forced to rely on overly complex queries with a lot of joins. This doesn't scale well and rarely necessary.

- Logging and error handling.

- Avoiding conflicts and accidental overwrite with old data when multiple users are editing different fields of the same resource concurrently.

- Efficient distribution of realtime messages.

- Scalability.

The list goes on and on... And every piece has to be implemented perfectly. This involves a huge number of carefully thought-out decisions.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#36

Post by argee »

molsongolden wrote: post #12
argee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this article had enough thought put into it. For example: What happened in 2025 was this: the economics of code production were turned upside down. Instead of being very hard, time-consuming, and expensive to generate code, it became effectively free and instant. Lines of code went from being treasured, reused, cared for and carefully curated, to being disposable and regenerable, practically overnight. I…

I think the point is that there are better engineering artifacts to review instead of lines of code. Encoding the decisions, structure, requirements, testing, monitoring, then reviewing those and having AI generate and regenerate code based on them. The code itself doesn't matter if enough thought and rigor has gone into the structure that produces the code. > What does "ideal" mean here? When I was growing up "show…

> They're saying that the mental models and thought processes are incredibly important but that code is not the place for that work to live.

What I meant is that, insofar as some work has been produced with a human mind involved and where imperfect abstractions are used, one should not for whatever idealistic reasons push for reviewing the work at some coarser granularity than the details which are readily available. That's a way to foster and encourage mistakes, in both the work and in the mental model.

So when you say that code is not the place for that work to live (or more closely to the line I disagree with, that code is not an 'ideal' artifact to review), you are essentially purporting that there is a perfect abstraction that can generally be trusted, which I disagree is currently the case for an LLM spec versus produced code.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#37

Post by romaniv »

wbl wrote: post #23
romaniv wrote: post #21

>"It’s easy to forget, but for most of 2025, the idea that AI-generated code was slop and might always be slop was not only a reasonable position to hold, it was the default, mainstream position. That question was answered decisively last November." It's easy to forget that people said this exact thing about every model after GPT 3.5. This is a standard trick the industry uses to invalidate negative experience with L…

The old model couldn't do math, the new one solved a big open problem.

"Open AI claims that its model disproven an Erdős conjecture, therefore my crappy way of arguing about software quality is valid."

I really don't know how I'm supposed to reply to stuff like this.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#38

Post by budsniffer952 »

ryandvm wrote: post #24

It is now significantly harder to figure out who understands the systems and is using AI effectively and who doesn't know shit and is just slinging LLM copypasta around. Before 2025, the underperformers/coasters were at least relatively identifiable by the paucity of their contributions. Now all of the sudden every single engineer is filing PRs, code reviews, technical design documents, and every other artifact under…

So, in other words, all the "awesome engineers" can't really tell good code from bad unless it's really obvious? Why should we listen to you about AI code being crap, then? Maybe, in the end, you don't really know. Maybe AI is better at it than you?

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#39

Post by win311fwg »

philbo wrote: post #33
trjordan wrote: post #27

> Those are not code problems. They are evaluation problems. > Code becomes precious when it is the only place knowledge lives. Reading AI code all day is _agonizing_. Just, a horrible way to live, and it melts people's brains at the moment you need them to be the most capable. Manual programming has this really productive and gratifying feedback loop, where you read the code, write the code, and fix it until it comp…

If a coworker dumped a 5k-line code review on you, you'd tell them to come back when it's broken down into smaller, reviewable chunks. Large dumps of code are basically unreviewable by humans, but it seems like a lot of people have forgotten about that when it comes to LLMs.

It is not so much forgetting as much as it is acceptance that when welcoming AI into a codebase, the code can no longer matter; that all that matters is that the properties of the system are validated. That isn't a change that comes free, so nobody should be expecting magic, it is a different set of tradeoffs. There is no such thing as a panacea.

Re: AI demands more engineering discipline. Not less

#40

Post by hootz »

philbo wrote: post #33
trjordan wrote: post #27

> Those are not code problems. They are evaluation problems. > Code becomes precious when it is the only place knowledge lives. Reading AI code all day is _agonizing_. Just, a horrible way to live, and it melts people's brains at the moment you need them to be the most capable. Manual programming has this really productive and gratifying feedback loop, where you read the code, write the code, and fix it until it comp…

If a coworker dumped a 5k-line code review on you, you'd tell them to come back when it's broken down into smaller, reviewable chunks. Large dumps of code are basically unreviewable by humans, but it seems like a lot of people have forgotten about that when it comes to LLMs.

I think they expect you to also use an LLM to review, and I bet they are doing exactly that when asked to review someone else's code.
Post reply on HN