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

Learning to code is still worthwhile

stevekrouse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 326 posts

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#281

Post by alightsoul »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #155
DrewADesign wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

a ton. that's why fortran was invented

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#282

Post by alightsoul »

brewtide wrote: post #87
embedding-shape wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to build. It's human to want to build. Anything a human feels is human, regardless if it's to build or to not build :) Some people prefer some ways of building, others in other ways, it's all fine. I think lots of people forget that programming is a heavily creative endeavor in the end. If I wanted to be slightly controversial, I'd argue building a program is more like painting a painting than building a bri…

Interesting you bring up (artistic) painting and bridge building. I'm a house painter, and while the work is... It's just relentless work and staring all day. It's the end results of making something just, better, with the simple acts of reputation and giving a shit about it. Just wondering where house painter falls in your scale, I'd hunch.

painting can either be a plumbing job or a canvas with an image. using clay and concrete can be either a bridge (similarly to the function of plumbing) or a sculpture. programming can be the same either crud and cloud or something just created for artistic expression like the ioccc.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#283

Post by taybin »

bazoom42 wrote: post #204
taybin wrote: post #120

> 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.

The point of art (like music and litterature) is the art itself. Code is a craft, it is means to an end. It can still be beautiful and impressive and creative, but it is a different thing. It is not a value judgement. Art can be bad or bland and code can be a work of genius. But the moon lander or a handmade watch are beautiful because they actually work. It can’t really be compared to music.

Thank you for understanding my comment. Code is a craft and could maybe be more compared to pottery, which usually has a use, and is primarily judged by well it fulfills its purpose. I'm not saying that there isn't "beautiful" code, and certainly not denying clever code. But the goalpost that code is just as expressive as literature or music is just too much. Show me the code that is inspired by the reflection of a sunset on a pond on a windy day.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#284

Post by Zak »

cedws wrote: post #242
_glass wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bit like in "Profession" by Isaac Asimov. We will still have the need for some people who will write code manually, fix the craft. We will need the "Feeble Minded" asylum that is actually a secret sanctuary for society's true creators. Because everyone else relies on generated code, they can only repeat what is already known. Only the people who learn the hard way through actual studying possess the creativit…

The reason LLMs seem powerful is that they can churn out the Nth variation of a CRUD app in minutes. But it’s hard to imagine they’ll ever independently develop a compiler for a truly novel programming language, for instance. They don’t have creativity. They are pattern generators.

> it’s hard to imagine they’ll ever independently develop a compiler for a truly novel programming language

I did exactly that using an LLM. It may not count as independent depending on how strict you are about that, but then LLMs don't do anything independently.

I wrote a small sample program and expected output, then told the LLM to write a compiler for it in C using LLVM. I subsequently told it to extend the language until it could be used for its own compiler, and rewrite the compiler in the new language. It did.

I don't think that contradicts your point about creativity. A compiler is probably a more mechanical task than a CRUD app is. There's a non-negotiable definition of done and correct.

Designing a language is a creative task of course, and I wouldn't expect an LLM to come up with a novel or ergonomic design on its own. In fact subsequent experiments have shown me that LLMs will consistently ignore terrible ergonomics in a language, never seeking opportunities to add abstraction or beauty.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#285

Post by taybin »

altmanaltman wrote: post #146
taybin wrote: post #120

> 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.

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 actually think plumbing does require a bunch of creativity. Trying to add some fixture to an old house with out of spec walls and prior creative solutions can be a real challenge. And you can really appreciate the people who come up with an elegant solution that isn't "tear it out and redo it from scratch".

I'd like to read that blog post.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#286

Post by taybin »

yowlingcat wrote: post #133
taybin wrote: post #120

> 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.

I kinda like the music comparison because it's so rich with sociological analogues. You have the gear snobs who can't stop buying more premium gear but never sit down and write anything. The kids who pick up a copy of Garageband and put together hits with their natural talent, sense of taste and and interesting story to tell. Soundtrack and videogame composers who have hybrid instincts of session musicians and archit…

Coding is so rich that you can use it for artistic pursuits, but I argue that the output is the real art, and the code itself is not art and itself is not expressing anything.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#287

Post by Izkata »

palmotea wrote: post #179
irjustin wrote: post #122

Earlier 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…

> LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs? People keep trying to make that analogy, but it doesn't really work because LLMs aren't deterministic like compilers and assemblers.

Also to be a compiler-type next-level-up abstraction we'd have to be at the point where we commit the prompts and throw away the code.

(Which is pretty much what determinism would get us, but in these conversations way too many people seem not to understand what determinism is, so describing it in terms of actions the developer takes might work better?)

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#288

Post by 62951413 »

ekidd wrote: post #65

As 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…

Pro: In the last ten years backend development has turned into AWS SDK-orientied programming mostly. Databricks-oriented in case of data engineering recently too. Between this and python/js popularity it is more of unskilled labor now.

Contra: I'm reading digital circuits and introductory FPGA programming books this summer - fullstack development for the robotics dominated future here I come ;) Granted some EE classes in your old major will help. But modern digital circuits and embedded hardware space also have a lot of similarity to your muscle memory as a software developer.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#289

Post by archagon »

irjustin wrote: post #122
StilesCrisis wrote: post #77

Earlier 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…

LLMs are as much an "abstraction" as outsourcing your app to a bunch of contractors: a silly dilution of the word to the point of meaninglessness.

Re: Learning to code is still worthwhile

#290

Post by danielbln »

stronglikedan wrote: post #128
StilesCrisis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The babysitting work would still be impossible if you didn't actually know how to code.

I fear the capability of the models will quickly outpace the need for a human to validate their output. They won't be juniors for much longer.

Agreed, you can feel this change strongly with Opus vs Fable. Fable doesn't feel like a junior developer anymore. And it requires a lot less ceremony to boot.
Post reply on HN