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

You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

minid.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 157 posts

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#101

Post by blooalien »

nijave wrote: post #41
radlad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best engineers hand-edit .git Edit: But actually, one of my favorite Git explainers is https://wildlyinaccurate.com/a-hackers-guide-to-git/

I write all my code in assembly on paper then manually translate into opcodes

> I write all my code in assembly on paper then manually translate into opcodes

LOL! There was actually a time (way back when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth) when that was actually how it was done. ;)

(I remember as a kid having to look-up hexadecimal 6502 CPU opcodes on a chart then type in a huge list of hex into the computer to write "machine code" if you wanted anything faster and more powerful than BASIC.)

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#102

Post by dnoberon »

yulker wrote: post #26
alex_x wrote: post #8

All above comes at a cost of author slowly starting to understand less and less code in their own projects. Then in other projects as well. After the initial boost is over they will have to pay money just to stay afloat because they have already outsourced their thinking. I’m not anti AI, but I’m very worried about this bragging “you are not better engineer if you do things yourself”. Yes, you are, it all comes in sm…

How do you justify it against all the other abstractions you've accepted and no longer know how to do (or never learned in the first place). Why are the current set of manual steps the right level to be permanently aware of?

Heard a quote I liked today.

“In order to be effective working at any layer of abstraction you must have in-depth knowledge of the layer below where you’re at”.

To be the most effective at AI assisted engineering (if treated as an abstraction layer) you need to understand how code works, behaves, architectures etc. and what well performing, well built things look like. Doesn’t necessarily mean you have to know everything like you would pre-AI, but enough to be effective.

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#103

Post by meerita »

dnoberon wrote: post #102
yulker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you justify it against all the other abstractions you've accepted and no longer know how to do (or never learned in the first place). Why are the current set of manual steps the right level to be permanently aware of?

Heard a quote I liked today. “In order to be effective working at any layer of abstraction you must have in-depth knowledge of the layer below where you’re at”. To be the most effective at AI assisted engineering (if treated as an abstraction layer) you need to understand how code works, behaves, architectures etc. and what well performing, well built things look like. Doesn’t necessarily mean you have to know everyt…

Exactly, automation of manual tasks, doesn't mean it will wipe your knowledge or your ability to keep reviewing commits, writing comments on PRs, etc.

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#104

Post by meerita »

cognitiveinline wrote: post #98
munk-a wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a good idea to learn how to work through those levels of abstraction, even if only academically, since it yields a lot of insight into why our current abstraction level is the way it is. I don't personally use git CLI on a day to day basis (I use a gasp GUI) but I know what a rebase is and how to recover from a variety of bad states using CLI alone during an emergency. Being aware of how commits actually…

Manual knowledge of git to get out of tricky situations will be as passe as using log book for multiplication. It's just not required anymore.

[flagged]

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#105

Post by meerita »

nijave wrote: post #41
radlad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best engineers hand-edit .git Edit: But actually, one of my favorite Git explainers is https://wildlyinaccurate.com/a-hackers-guide-to-git/

I write all my code in assembly on paper then manually translate into opcodes

My dad worked with punched cards.

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#106

Post by nomel »

TheSamFischer wrote: post #80
nomel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Abstractions are not a convenience, they're a cognitive necessity , compressing large aspects of the problem space into easy to not think about blocks, allowing humans, with their limited working memory, to reason about larger problems. The only reason a seasoned developer can think at a high/system level is because of the abstractions/compressions they've formed in their heads. Technology exists to make…

There are plenty of people who understand the stack and ship actually fast software. This might be a skill issue that you’re choosing to frame as a “best practice”, because you do not want to put in the work. Our end users are who should benefit. You’re the pilot in the seat who doesn’t know what the throttle is and you’re telling the passenger it’s the plane’s fault it’s slow.

> that you’re choosing to frame as a “best practice”,

I don't follow.

> because you do not want to put in the work.

Yes, just as nobody wants to type opcodes, or write their own http clients, or etc. It's why most of us use higher level languages. Leave the solved things solved, and work on actually interesting/new things! That doesn't mean not understanding, it just means not wasting time on the same boilerplate/code duplicated by millions of developers.

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#107

Post by meerita »

blooalien wrote: post #95

Funny how all that stuff one spends so much time and effort learning was "a waste of time and effort" to everyone that has zero idea how anything works "under the hood", but the moment it breaks, you're always the guy that has to fix it in the end. I honestly believe that's one of the biggest contributing factors to "developer burn-out". Being ignored and ridiculed repeatedly (Shut up, Nerd. Nobody wants to hear you…

[flagged]

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#108

Post by hparadiz »

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #89
hparadiz wrote: post #22

I still tell the AI exactly what to do and you need to understand what reset, rebase, pull, and checkout actually do. Otherwise you end up with a mess.

Yes but you do not have to invoke them directly yourself anymore

Absolutely and I love it to be completely honest

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#109

Post by munk-a »

cognitiveinline wrote: post #98
munk-a wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a good idea to learn how to work through those levels of abstraction, even if only academically, since it yields a lot of insight into why our current abstraction level is the way it is. I don't personally use git CLI on a day to day basis (I use a gasp GUI) but I know what a rebase is and how to recover from a variety of bad states using CLI alone during an emergency. Being aware of how commits actually…

Manual knowledge of git to get out of tricky situations will be as passe as using log book for multiplication. It's just not required anymore.

Who will get you out of such a tricky situation?

Re: You're Not a Better Engineer Because You Type Git Commands by Hand

#110

Post by thunderfork »

rspeele wrote: post #72
thunderfork wrote: post #14

Picking on a particular nit here, but I think it is indicative of the broader flaw with this argument: To rename `PostgreSQLClient`, I press F2 and type the new name, and I'm done. I don't have to wait for an agent to "perform the refactor, update references, run the tests, fix the missing pieces, and mark the relevant checkboxes in the ticket" (btw, what checkboxes..?) I press a key, type my change, and I'm done. Wa…

Despite having long valued statically typed languages, and IDEs with excellent refactoring tools (VS + ReSharper was a godsend back in the day before MS implemented most of the must-have features themselves)... I sort of disagree. The problem is the IDE refactor->rename updates the code but the agent's "rename" will also catch developer-facing documentation in text files, comments, etc. that referenced the old name.…

My tools will catch string matches in docs, but if you're using reflection or etc where it's "too weird" for tools I can see it being useful there, yeah.
Post reply on HN