Live data from Hacker News

Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

stackoverflow.blog

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#41
I agree with this article, but it's so much more than just trust in a workflow. It's an API you can trust, in an ocean of change. That's what you're choosing; an api, abi... whatever you call it. You're committing to an extensible boundary. And both the boundary, and the extensibility (not to mention the openness) are why they win.

And shelling out to a cli? That's a pretty damn compelling and composable boundary, IMO.

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#43
post #12

I feel like these abstractions like "CI might not work well in the era of agentic tooling" are fine for thought-leadership posts but there's so much hands-on work to be done. The last word on AI computer use shouldn't be bash utils that were already feature-complete before MJ recorded Thriller. There is some movement in this direction--there is a new 'gh' subcommand called repo read-file for example, that lets agents…

I've found the process of building good reliable CI that thoroughly covers everything has been greatly improved by LLMs. There's so much tedious plumbing and grunt work involved in building CI and automated testing infrastructure for bespoke products that they can handle just fine while you concentrate on the important bits - I would say it's an area where agentic workflows are even more suited than regular product code.

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#44

Stack Overflow conveniently defining the problem in a way that makes SO the answer. The irony is that the kind of code review that LLMs make possible would never have been doable on SO lest you be accused of trying to 'outsource the work'. Now agentic coding produces the full 100 line change, and SO says the real crisis is that nobody has reviewed it properly. SO was fully responsible for creating the culture where n…

[deleted]

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#45

An example of this in action is the utter inability to get deepseek v4 flash (even the new version) to stay concise. I have jumped through all sorts of hoops with deterministic checks, pre-message injection hooks, memory framework, etc and when it fails still and I ask why it essentially says "I forgot." This makes it unreliable and preferences are things I need to assume are treated as exactly that, preferences, not…

Lots of people saying the same about Deepseek v4 Flash. Seems like it's an artifact of that model.

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#46
post #2

I have to admit, I asked ChatGPT to do a TLDR summary because I found the writing meandered quite a bit. I think the overall point is sound: > "Developers become attached to tools like Vim, Emacs, or an IDE because years of experience make those tools predictable extensions of their thinking. The attachment is less about features and more about accumulated trust, muscle memory, and a workflow built around known bound…

I have it give me a punchlist and a tldr in a table format for every turn. It helps cut through the incessant babbling.

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#47

This article is a bit rambly so I'll just focus on some things from the beginning: >If your kitchen knife kept changing shape, weight, and edge, you’d have to relearn it every time; that’s a hard tool to build trust in. This concept was betrayed far before agentic tools, with a much earlier concept: Automatic updates. To use one product as an example: When Windows ME and Windows Vista came out, people hated them even…

> Microsoft was forced to respond by making a not-quite-as-bad OS in Windows XP

Prior to XP, MS had two lines of Windows: the Windows 9x kernels and the Windows NT kernels. Windows XP was meant to be the merger of the two lines, adapting Windows NT to have compatibility with Windows 95 and Windows 98 features. Unfortunately, Windows XP development went overlong, so MS wedged in Windows ME to give a stop-gap release until XP could actually be released.

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#48
post #21

[flagged]

Yes that is what happened to SO. They now get practically zero questions, zero answers, zero page views, and zero ad revenue. It is their own fault because they froze everyone out of the site and then once LLMs became an alternative, everyone started asking their questions to LLMs. They are now trying to somehow pivot to AI to make revenue again, starting with Stack Overflow for Agents, and now with wordy vacuous blo…

The pains for me were around all the penalties I got for not following formalities, or at least that's what it felt like to me.

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#49

This article is a bit rambly so I'll just focus on some things from the beginning: >If your kitchen knife kept changing shape, weight, and edge, you’d have to relearn it every time; that’s a hard tool to build trust in. This concept was betrayed far before agentic tools, with a much earlier concept: Automatic updates. To use one product as an example: When Windows ME and Windows Vista came out, people hated them even…

A good tool does a job well with minimal side effects and maximal predictability.

Perhaps this is why users dislike monthly SaaS - they cannot trust stability of the tool, because often the incentives are to keep adding features well past peak utility [ resulting in enshitification ]

Re: Developers are attached to tools because tools encode trust

#50
post #49

This article is a bit rambly so I'll just focus on some things from the beginning: >If your kitchen knife kept changing shape, weight, and edge, you’d have to relearn it every time; that’s a hard tool to build trust in. This concept was betrayed far before agentic tools, with a much earlier concept: Automatic updates. To use one product as an example: When Windows ME and Windows Vista came out, people hated them even…

A good tool does a job well with minimal side effects and maximal predictability. Perhaps this is why users dislike monthly SaaS - they cannot trust stability of the tool, because often the incentives are to keep adding features well past peak utility [ resulting in enshitification ]

followup .. one reason I now love and detest C++ is the regularity of new features in the core working set [ particularly the current politically correct incarnation of the smart pointer. ]
Post reply on HN