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

Why write code in 2026

softwaredoug.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 321 posts

Re: Why write code in 2026

#141

Post by bflesch »

dude250711 wrote: post #129
ekidd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude is perfectly capable of writing assembly. Here's a working (basic) Prolog interpreter that Claude Fable 5 wrote in WebAssembly in 61 minutes for $16.75 in token costs: https://github.com/emk/fable-wasm-prolog/blob/main/prolog.wa... WebAssembly is slightly easier than real assembly, but here Fable used WASM GC extensions, which are poorly documented and not yet super common. Fable didn't even need to debug it;…

The guys with unlimited Fable/Mythos access are for some reason incapable of producing a flawless Claude Code app built entirely in native assemblies.

They're so busy winning that they don't care about improving their own web apps ;)

Re: Why write code in 2026

#142

Post by lelanthran »

enraged_camel wrote: post #138
lelanthran wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently it's not obvious to everyone, but if you can't write code, you can't review it. There's more to it than that: writing is thinking. If you stop writing code, you aren't thinking anymore. Many argue that they're now thinking at a higher level (maybe they weren't before?), but, guess what, that high-level design can be done better by the LLM than by you anyway. It's only temporary.

>> There's more to it than that: writing is thinking. If you stop writing code, you aren't thinking anymore. Humans have been thinking long before writing was invented . Why is code special?

> Humans have been thinking long before writing was invented.

And look how poorly they did it until they invented writing.

> Why is code special?

You don't get better at thinking without doing. With code the "doing" part is writing.

In your view, it is reasonable to expect HS students to thoroughly read a book on trigonometry and then ace the exam? We know, from experience, that only by doing problems does the student actually learn. We also know that when you stop doing problems the facility atrophys.

Why is code different?

Re: Why write code in 2026

#143

Post by bluefirebrand »

softwaredoug wrote: post #112
supermdguy wrote: post #102

“Do you know what the industry term for a project specification that is comprehensive and precise enough to generate a program? Code. It’s called code.” - CommitStrip ( https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1p70bk8/sp... ) I think if you’re doing it right, the core of your code should be the simplest expression of the underlying business logic. Of course there’s always going to be supporting layers, and m…

My other article on this topic advocates for using code over specs :) It’s ok to talk to the agent in code. Or create examples for it to follow. https://softwaredoug.com/blog/2026/07/04/write-code-not-spec...

> It’s ok to talk to the agent in code. Or create examples for it to follow

If you're doing this, then why not just write the effing code?

Re: Why write code in 2026

#144

Post by LtWorf »

dehrmann wrote: post #108
ryandvm wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have Claude write assembly because there is no training corpus on people making CRUD apps in assembly. I'm as hateful of LLMs hollowing out the job market as the next guy, but the reality is the frontier LLMs are really good at writing anything that's been done and documented on the Internet a million times and unfortunately most of what software devs have been doing the last couple decades is shitting out…

> They don't have Claude write assembly because there is no training corpus on people making CRUD apps in assembly. I suspect that despite its translation abilities, this is true, but I'd like to see it do things in languages that are more or less appropriate for tasks to see how much the training corpus matters vs. its ability to translate. Assembly is a bit of an extreme example because you're either writing it as…

> C is essentially portable assembly

Not really, assembly shows you what the machine instructions actually are. In C you have loops, functions structs. All things that make no sense in assembly.

Re: Why write code in 2026

#145

Post by [deleted] »

LtWorf wrote: post #144
dehrmann wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't have Claude write assembly because there is no training corpus on people making CRUD apps in assembly. I suspect that despite its translation abilities, this is true, but I'd like to see it do things in languages that are more or less appropriate for tasks to see how much the training corpus matters vs. its ability to translate. Assembly is a bit of an extreme example because you're either writing it as…

> C is essentially portable assembly Not really, assembly shows you what the machine instructions actually are. In C you have loops, functions structs. All things that make no sense in assembly.

[deleted]

Re: Why write code in 2026

#146

Post by okanat »

fernandotakai wrote: post #60

i write code because i love it. it's something that makes me genuinely happy, so why would i give that up?

If you're also happy getting paid for it, then the company will just stop paying you. If you rely on such income to have a visa, you'll 100% sure to accept that you're forced into this and you will give up coding, or else.

Re: Why write code in 2026

#147

Post by bluefirebrand »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #81
fernandotakai wrote: post #60

i write code because i love it. it's something that makes me genuinely happy, so why would i give that up?

There is magic in telling computer do something and seeing it zap through it billions of times faster than by any other means.

That doesn't feel like magic to me, it feels like cheating. It feels miserable and demoralizing.

And then it feels like a chore slogging through whatever it produced to verify it is correct.

Re: Why write code in 2026

#148

Post by dzonga »

mrweasel wrote: post #73

Apparently it's not obvious to everyone, but if you can't write code, you can't review it. I do know people, and companies, that says: "So what, we ask Claude to write the code, Codex will then do the review". The thing that then strikes me as odd is that they still ask for the code in Python, Java, or some other high level language.... Why? Just ask Claude to dump out assembly, or a compiled binary, but no, they don…

just to add to your excellent observation

by writing code by hand - you're the author & editor at the same time.

if you're skilled enough - you quickly get to the desired state vs the llm which while might produce a lot of code - but it likely won't give the end state you desire.

an analogy - Jason Fried gave - producing software by llm's is like bragging you're a photographer by pressing the shutter button on an automatic camera.

while the art of photography - is about producing the single perfect photo - that communicates the photographers intent (what they want the world to see & experience).

likewise in software - what we make should be deliberate.

Re: Why write code in 2026

#149

Post by gnabgib »

LtWorf wrote: post #144
dehrmann wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't have Claude write assembly because there is no training corpus on people making CRUD apps in assembly. I suspect that despite its translation abilities, this is true, but I'd like to see it do things in languages that are more or less appropriate for tasks to see how much the training corpus matters vs. its ability to translate. Assembly is a bit of an extreme example because you're either writing it as…

> C is essentially portable assembly Not really, assembly shows you what the machine instructions actually are. In C you have loops, functions structs. All things that make no sense in assembly.

Loops (conditional JMPS - JE/JNE/JZ/JNZ/JB/JNB.. and a dozen others) and functions (CALL, RET) exist in assembly. Goto is there too (all JMPs). C makes assembly sense.

Re: Why write code in 2026

#150

Post by walt_grata »

deadbabe wrote: post #132
LPisGood wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Gutenberg invented the printing press, he could not have predicted the teleprompter. Now that code is easy to generate, it’s plausible that we will use much, much more of it than before. It’s also a bit ironic to imagine that we’re at the end of new software ideas on a site owned(?) by YC.

it's also plausible that with an ability to generate as much code as we want with little effort, we will quickly discover how much code we actually need, and then plateau at that point. Personally, I think we've already reached that point. Even at YC, I have not really seen any startup doing anything interesting where their main value prop is enabled by new proprietary code that does stuff no one else can already do.

We have more code than we need. Proof for me is every "smart" device that worked better before we put a computer in it.
Post reply on HN