[flagged]
Learning to code is still worthwhile
151–160 of 326 posts
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finally my turn to shine! I learned how to play guitar for like a decade before I got into programming. I also write a lot and have some small novels I have finished. I feel your analogy is right but it can extend to anything. Plumbing is a job, programing is a job and yes its basically the same process if you see at as a job. But what OP means is the skill/ability of programming rather than the job of it. Think of a…
> I am currently working on a blog trying to explain concurrency and parallelism using the song "Free Bird" Ok, now I'm hooked :) What's your blog? I don't suppose it has an RSS feed, hopefully? :)
You can find my blog here: https://decodingvibes.com/. It does have an RSS feed and no ads or any kind of tracking or lead forms, etc. Do note it's mostly an entertainment or pop-programming style writing, not something that does deep dives into super technical stuff (mostly because I don't think I am qualified to write something I don't fully understand) but I try to keep it fun!
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#153Does anyone here know any mathematicians who can’t do long division or basic algebra?
Probably not, because they *don’t exist because learning basic math is necessary to learn higher level math*. Whether or not we have calculators to do basic math is irrelevant if you want to become a mathematician.
I’d argue that “whether or not the average dev will be writing any code by hand in 5 years” is irrelevant to whether or not one should learn to code *if they want to master designing and building complex software* using whatever method they will be using.
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
The babysitting work would still be impossible if you didn't actually know how to code.
For now, I can imagine a not too distant future where this is largely untrue. LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs? At some point you stopped needing to understand the layer down because the layer you were on became so good. Yes there are always corner cases, but for the vast majority of developers/engineers out there, staying at your layer was enough to make a care…
They aren't because we're not committing prompts. The analogous would be compiling to and then committing unmaintainable assembly when the higher level language, which is a deterministic compiler, already exists
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#155As a professional programmer entering the final third of an enjoyable career, I would now place "learning to code" in the same category as "making a living as a poet." As in, it's truly enjoyable art and some people appreciate it, but you'd better plan for a day job. Senior people who already know how to code are doing OKish for now, from the data I've seen, but the job is increasingly babysitting models like they we…
Yeah. I’ve been saying that for a while (and switched fields entirely.) People were getting hung up on the idea that an LLM could not truly replace a developer, and that’s true, but it doesn’t matter. For the job market to be severely impacted, you just need to reduce the number of people required to do the parts of the job that LLMs suck at, and that only requires increased efficiency for existing developers. Even i…
How much more efficient did compilers make developers?
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I'm not saying that you should go back to code in assembly. But, come on, you can surely dedicate 30 minutes of your time to read how a CPU works... Just have curiosity would be my advice
At the expense of what, though? That's 30 minutes not spent learning about the business, or talking to customers, or to your kids. Or watching the World Cup. Or reading Hacker News.
i always hear this argument. and then those that proclaim it get stuck for a sprint trying to fit a square peg in a round hole
and then i get a ticket a month later because the customer reported the feature isn't working. all while they proclaim how much they care about the customer.
i'm not just talking about one person. i feel as if there's an archetype of programmer that thinks like this.
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs The what is the semantic mapping between and LLMs? I know the semantic mapping between maching code and assembly (some light weight syntax manipulation and macros). I know the one between assembly and C (the C abstract machine, which is mostly about the stack and whatever call/ret instructions pair). I know the one between C an…
The non-determinism is one of the relevant features of this layer of abstraction! And one can learn to validate that the translation is being done properly. Some of the tools you have include writing extremely detailed specs, generating visualizations of the internals of the tool, or (perhaps) reading the code, though that becomes less feasible with volume. Basically it turns out that code is full of incidental detai…
Writing specs validates the translation is being done properly? Was this written by an LLM?
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
For now, I can imagine a not too distant future where this is largely untrue. LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs? At some point you stopped needing to understand the layer down because the layer you were on became so good. Yes there are always corner cases, but for the vast majority of developers/engineers out there, staying at your layer was enough to make a care…
They aren't because we're not committing prompts. The analogous would be compiling to and then committing unmaintainable assembly when the higher level language, which is a deterministic compiler, already exists
> not committing prompts.
nothing prevents people from committing their prompts. I've started seeing prompts being committed into repos, or at least as part of the commit message.
In any case, if in the future there's a prompt specific language, it would be committed. I dont think we've reached there yet, but i dont doubt this is on the path to the future.
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but if things progress as they promised, it will require far fewer people to do the same work, which means the industry already has all the people it so need for at least a couple decades. That’s what happened with tool and die guys when offshoring kicked off, and now they’re scrambling to get apprentices because the last of the OG ones are retiring. There were decades that pretty much nobody (relative to prio…
You are assuming that the amount of work is finite, so more productive people implies fewer people are required. Is that the case though? Has it ever been?
The amount of work is not a fixed number, it's more of a supply/demand curve. Do we need 100 programs? Yes definitely! 10k? Yes. 1m? Probably. 100m? Uhm... 1bn? Probably not.
So there will always be a point where people aren't willing to hire more software developers because there are enough already.
Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile
#160> Code is a beautiful form of creative expression, as rich as literature or music I think this is overstating it and makes me wonder how familiar the author is with literature and music. Most programming is closer to plumbing. We come in, gripe about the guy who did the prior job, and solve a puzzle with some unique constraints. The reason LLMs are good at coding is because with coding we want boring, banal code.
Looks like you two are on opposite sides of the same fence. The demo scene exists it's programming for fun and creative expression. Also the ioccc. That's the equivalent of a creatively written novel. Then there's writing for just a job like writing knowledge bases. That would be programming for plumbing aka crud and cloud.