Software Has Changed
abeautifulsite.net
Software Has Changed
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Software Has Changed
#2> If the end result is solid code that I've thoroughly reviewed and trust, does it truly matter how it was created?
It does matter if a coworker throws it away next week and replaces it with a fresh plate of slop, because generating code is just so cheap now.
Re: Software Has Changed
#3I see a lot of experimenting and tinkering but I don't see a lot of products coming out that have differentiating characteristics, which makes me think people are both doing a lot more and doing a lot less at the same time.
And no, it doesn't matter how the end-product is made unless you care about maintenance/maintaining it.
Code in developed-environments (developed as in country) typically has an aestheticism to it. This served two purposes: beauty and comprehension. Comprehension and extensibility were tightly coupled before LLMs could "elaborate" endlessly. Now, extensibility and comprehensibility are only loosely coupled. But the ratio of people who have truly taken this to its maximum is not large. You still need good ideas and differentiating characteristics to make good applications.
It might seem like it doesn't matter which language or framework you choose, now that the LLMs can endlessly "elaborate." Since comprehensibility is largely optional now. But, if you desire extensibility, making thoughtful design decisions early , such as which language and which framework, can make a noticeable difference down-the-line.
Re: Software Has Changed
#4Writing structures and clarifies my thoughts, writing code did the same but for software design.
Yes AI types it all faster, but I've lost the clarity and certainty of my understanding. I am finding I'm having to read the code deeply, but reading code isn't as fun or engaging as writing it.
Re: Software Has Changed
#5> does it truly matter how it was created
To users of the software, no it doesn't really. Users only care about results aligned with their priorities.
That said, the act of creation changes the creator, so make sure that you are actually creating! The more you lean on LLMs to generate the concepts/ideas, the less "you" are creating them, and thus the less value to you as a creator the process offers.
Re: Software Has Changed
#6I guess the real question now will be: as your experience stepping inside the machine wanes, will you trust yourself or the cargo cult of procedure you hope will ward off error
Re: Software Has Changed
#7> does it truly matter how it was created To users of the software, no it doesn't really. Users only care about results aligned with their priorities. That said, the act of creation changes the creator, so make sure that you are actually creating! The more you lean on LLMs to generate the concepts/ideas, the less "you" are creating them, and thus the less value to you as a creator the process offers.
Only people actually do care about the process by which the products they use were created. It's our job, as experts who build things, to educate our audiences why and how we build what we build.
Meaningful percentages of people already hate the obvious slop being thrown in their faces. The more they learn of the slop infecting the inside of the digital products they use—and the resulting enshittification—they will seek out worthy alternatives.
Re: Software Has Changed
#8> does it truly matter how it was created To users of the software, no it doesn't really. Users only care about results aligned with their priorities. That said, the act of creation changes the creator, so make sure that you are actually creating! The more you lean on LLMs to generate the concepts/ideas, the less "you" are creating them, and thus the less value to you as a creator the process offers.
Only people actually do care about the process by which the products they use were created. It's our job, as experts who build things, to educate our audiences why and how we build what we build. Meaningful percentages of people already hate the obvious slop being thrown in their faces. The more they learn of the slop infecting the inside of the digital products they use—and the resulting enshittification—they will s…
TLDR I care more about the outcome not being slop than I do an LLM being involved in its creation.
Sure but not everyone is as process driven, some are more outcome driven. Personally I care more about the outcome of your software (its quality) than I do the process you used to create it (LLM gen? transpired from some other language?).
Back in the day when I was into reversing MacOS apps (during the PowerPC era) there were these cross platform frameworks that were used sometimes that I really loathed. I did not like them because - Reversing: The binaries were a spaghetti garbage mess that (unintentionally) amounted to some serious obfuscation - User Experience: Ugly (no native elements), Slow (because of the aforementioned spaghetti), and Bloated (took up a lot of space back when that came at a premium)
The thing is though, I would not care if they had made these in Xcode Obj-C natively and just did a poor job of it. To me the end result was indigestible, and the process by which it was derived was neither here nor there. Even without LLMs, my world at that time was abound in generated slop that I did not like.
I think it's totally acceptable to be process driven. Much interest in art is based around the process or lived experience of the artist more than the art itself. I think it's mostly an aesthetic or cultural difference which side of the spectrum (if any) between process and outcome you live on.