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

Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

rhonabwy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 266 posts

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#211

Post by catlifeonmars »

whstl wrote: post #111
vladvasiliu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue with your rebuttal is that companies think they have a very specific problem that needs solving, so they need bespoke software. Just read on the various HN posts where people complain about PMs moving things around for no reason other than justifying their jobs.

Yep. And it's not just PMs. Everyone with any responsibility for picking any software in a company will work very hard to make things harder and more expensive, rather than easier. People will ask for a 100k-year app, or whatever is the Ferrari of their business. If they don't get it, they will ask for the complex features they saw in that 100k-year software package, even if they won't use it. If it internal software…

> The only situation where I didn't see this happening was in startups where people are actually busy.

FWIW you still see this, it just tends to not survive for too long.

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#212

Post by al_borland »

samiv wrote: post #78
Alien1Being wrote: post #38

AI generated code is like IKEA furniture. IKEA furniture embodies many elements of good cabinet making but skips many nonessential elements. And does this more consistently than cabinet makers who can be bored, incompetent, depressed, burnt out, resentful, tired, having a bad day. In the future AI code inevitably will embody most good software engineering practices. And will do this more consistently than software en…

What a sad analogy. IKEA furniture is mostly cheap particle board crap and it's a shame that we as a humanity have cheapened our lives to the point where IKEA is some kind of standard (and the only thing) most people can afford. Back in the day furniture was artisanal and hand made yet people were able to afford and have it. Isn't that in fact weird, supposedly our societies are richer than ever before but most peopl…

Expectations of society have changed. This cannot be discounted.

That old furniture was also expensive. A family would save up and buy a piece, use it their whole life, and often pass it on to children or other family members.

These days, with IKEA, Wayfair, etc, people throw out and get all new furniture every time they move, or even just to refresh a space. They do this because the furniture is cheap. If they saved up for a year to buy a kitchen table, it would be used for a long time and not get discarded and replaced along with fashion trends in home decor.

The high quality stuff is still out there, it’s just that most people don’t want to pay for it, as we don’t see furniture as an investment anymore.

People seem to have no problem paying $1,000 for a phone that they’ll replace in 2-3 years, yet they won’t spend $4,000 on a kitchen table that will be used 3+ times per day by the whole family for 50 years.

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#213

Post by DanielHB »

bartread wrote: post #132
mattmanser wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems delusional to me, being older and more experienced with how long IKEA stuff actually lasts. 8 years is long for IKEA furniture, usually something has irreplaceablely broken by then. IKEA also refuse to sell you spare parts. Give me real furniture anyday.

> IKEA also refuse to sell you spare parts. Sorry to call bullshit but I think that’s exactly what this statement is. Just looking at our wardrobe and thinking about how it’s actually not one thing at all, but made up of dozens of different SKUs, and how I could reorder any of them individually if I needed. There are also third party sellers of parts such as runners, door rails, and the like (not that you need them s…

IKEA sells spare parts and for small items (like bolts and fittings) will send them for free.

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#214

Post by DanielHB »

LtWorf wrote: post #129
mattmanser wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems delusional to me, being older and more experienced with how long IKEA stuff actually lasts. 8 years is long for IKEA furniture, usually something has irreplaceablely broken by then. IKEA also refuse to sell you spare parts. Give me real furniture anyday.

Quite a long comment to write that you've never once seen ikea furniture.

I live in Sweden now, so yes I have seen some IKEA furniture around.

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#215

Post by ok123456 »

Alien1Being wrote: post #38

AI generated code is like IKEA furniture. IKEA furniture embodies many elements of good cabinet making but skips many nonessential elements. And does this more consistently than cabinet makers who can be bored, incompetent, depressed, burnt out, resentful, tired, having a bad day. In the future AI code inevitably will embody most good software engineering practices. And will do this more consistently than software en…

I thought the whole software engineering profession was built on making more "IKEA-like" programs. Design patterns and general reusability are the pre-cut, pressed particle board, screws, and Allen-tool sets.

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#217

Post by slopinthebag »

nsingh2 wrote: post #186
slopinthebag wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning. But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So…

You are making two different claims, and then treating them as one. 1. Mimicking a process may not prove that the system is truly preforming the same process. In this case, a "reasoning" process. 2. A system that simulates a process cannot, by definition, be doing the process. The first claim can be defended, but the second doesn't follow from the first. Calling it a "simulation" is assuming the conclusion. What make…

What makes GTA a simulation and not just a different implementation of the laws of nature and downtown LA?

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#218

Post by trixn »

user43928 wrote: post #31

The article says what many here like to hear, but in my opinion the core arguments are false. > Making software debuggable, maintainable, layered, and composable – that’s still quite a trick Not really. I have been working on a mobile app for months, and I stopped even glancing at the code about two months ago. 150k LOC, around half of that in tests, and the AI still has no problem maintaining the code on my behalf.…

> prompt injection appears to be largely solved

That's about as correct as saying cyber security is largely solved by referring to a "benchmark" that a particular virus scanner is able to detect and prevent infection with 720 known computer viruses. All this shows is that the model has been fitted to the benchmark, not that it is hardened against any conceivable way of prompt injection.

And regarding vibe-coding a mobile app with zero users, probably zero monitoring and zero everything like all the other vibe-coded apps that have zero users. Sure you can do that but what is the point?

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#219

Post by simonw »

hirvi74 wrote: post #191
simonw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell it to use red/green TDD and start things off with an already configured test suite, maybe with a single test that asserts 1+1==2. Make sure it know how to run the tests before it starts writing any additional code. Then set it a clear goal.

> Make sure it know how to run the tests before it starts writing any additional code. Thank you for this advice. I can absolutely see how such advice could be helpful, and considering I have created environments (containerized) where that is not always possible, then that might explain some of my past results. XD Do you have any advice on how to make LLMs actually follow instructions and how to prevent them 80/20-in…

For following instructions I think the main thing is to work with strong models (Opus/Fable 5, GPT-5.6) and then practice with them and build up intuition for what works.

I find they mostly do exactly what I ask them to, but I think that's because I instinctively prompt them in a way that effectively communicates what I want.

Re: Software Engineering fundamentals matter more

#220

Post by hirvi74 »

justincormack wrote: post #147
amelius wrote: post #51

But do the same SWE fundamentals apply if the one doing the programming is many times smarter than us?

LLMs are not smart in any way, but they are a weird kind of effective thats very different.

I have worked with a few people like this.
Post reply on HN