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

The next two years of software engineering

addyosmani.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 403 posts

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#161

Post by schnitzelstoat »

maciejzj wrote: post #143

TBH, it all feels like a huge gamble at this point. Neither skills, education, institutional ties, nor current employment can guarantee a stable foundation for life. This hits harder depending on how much money, social capital, or debt you accumulated before this volatility began. If you’ve paid off your debts, bought a house, and stabilized your family life, you’re gambling with how comfortable the coming years will…

I felt a lot safer when I was a young grad than now that I have kids to support and I can't just up and move to wherever the best job opportunity is or live off lentils to save money or whatever.

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#162

Post by menaerus »

falloutx wrote: post #150
menaerus wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really do wonder what sort of economy change is coming to us because companies will hypothetically need to hire less people to sustain the equal output of today. They can do that basically today so not even hypothetically anymore, it just needs some time to take off. The question IMO is, who will be creating the demand on the other side for all of these goods produced if so many people will be left without the jobs…

UBI is just a pipe dream. The rich are clutching their pearls even harder.

I think so too.

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#163

Post by darkwater »

Philpax wrote: post #157
ruszki wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has he stated that he uses AI like that? The last I heard about him a month ago, he specifically stated that he was not interested in AI to write code: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-ai-tool-maintai...

3 days ago: https://github.com/torvalds/AudioNoise/blob/main/README.md > Also note that the python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding. I know more about analog filters -- and that's not saying much -- than I do about python. It started out as my typical "google and do the monkey-see-monkey-do" kind of programming, but then I cut out the middle-man -- me -- and just used Google Antigravity to do…

For me there are two things notesworthy in that repo:

* the README was clearly not written by an LLM nor aided

* he still uses GPLv2 (not 3) as the license for his works

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#164

Post by falloutx »

lelanthran wrote: post #158
kasey_junk wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jevons paradox and it’s not a fallacy. It’s an observable behavior. The problem is it’s not predictive.

> Jevons paradox and it’s not a fallacy. It’s an observable behavior. The problem is it’s not predictive. I was referring specifically to this point, which, IMHO, is a fallacy: >>> There seems to be effectively infinite demand for software from consumers and enterprises so the cheaper it gets the more they buy. There is no way to use the word "infinite" in this context, even if qualified, that is representative of re…

There consumer internet is mostly cropped up by white collar people buying stuff online and clicking on ads. Once the cutting starts, the whole internet economy just becomes a money swapping machine between 7 VC groups.

The demand for paid software is decreasing cause these AI companies are saying "Oh dont buy that SAAS product because you can build it yourself now"

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#165

Post by latexr »

Chris2048 wrote: post #131
latexr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those would be a strawman, though. One would be a faulty generalization and the other is airing a grievance (could maybe be a bad faith argument?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization Though I get that these days people tend to use “strawman” for anything they see as a bad argument, so you could be right in your assessment. Would be nice to have clarification on what they mean.

Hmm, if the purpose of either is so an "easier" target can be made, I think it could still qualify as a straw-man; I think an accusation of straw-manning is in part a accusation of another's intent (or bad faith - not engaging with the argument).

> Hmm, if the purpose of either is so an "easier" target can be made, I think it could still qualify as a straw-man

Good point.

> I think an accusation of straw-manning is in part a accusation of another's intent (or bad faith - not engaging with the argument).

There I partially disagree. Straw-manning is not engaging with the argument but it can be done accidentally. As in, one may genuinely misunderstand the nuance in an argument and respond to a straw man by mistake. Bad faith does require bad intent.

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#166

Post by judahmeek »

torben-friis wrote: post #135
osigurdson wrote: post #41

>> The skillset is shifting from implementing algorithms to knowing how to ask the AI the right questions and verify its output. The question is, how much faster is verification only vs writing the code by hand? You gain a lot of understanding when you write the code yourself, and understanding is a prerequisite for verification. The idea seems to be a quick review is all that should be needed "LGTM". That's fine as…

And there's a ton of human incentives here to take shortcuts in the review part. The process almost pushes you to drop your guard: you spend less physical time observing the code while you write, you get huge chunks of code dropped on you, iterations change a lot to keep a mind model, there's FOMO involved about the speed gain you're supposed to get... We're going to see worse review quality just by a mater of UX and…

Yes! It depends on the company, of course, but I think plenty of people are going to fall for the perverse incentives while reviewing AI output for tech debt.

The perverse incentives being that tech debt is non-obvious & therefore really easy to avoid responsibility for.

Meanwhile, velocity is highly obvious & usually tired directly to personal & team performance metrics.

The only way I see to resolve this is strict enforcement of a comprehensive QA process during both the planning & iteration of an AI-assisted development cycle.

But when even people working at Anthropic are talking about running multiple agents in parallel, I get the idea that CTO's are not taking this seriously.

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#169

Post by _heimdall »

qsera wrote: post #108
hncoder12345 wrote: post #53

Sometimes I wonder if I made the wrong choice with software development. Even after getting to a senior role, according to this article, you're still expected to get more education and work on side projects outside of work. Am I supposed to want to code all the time? When can I pursue hobbies, a social life, etc.

>I made the wrong choice with software development. If you didn't like working with computers, then you (and another gazillion people who choose it for the $$$) probably made the wrong choice. But totally depends on what you wanted to get out of it. If you wanted to make $$$ and you are making it, what is the problem? That is assuming you have fun outside of work. But if you wanted to be the best at what you do, then…

> If you didn't like working with computers, then you probably made the wrong choice.

This doesn't match what I have seen in other industries. Many auto mechanics I know drive old Buicks or Ford's with the 4.6l v8 because the cars are reliable and the last thing they want to do on a day off is have to work on their own car. I know a few people in other trades like plumbers, electricians, and chefs and the pattern holds pretty well for them as well.

You can enjoy working with computers and also enjoy not working in your personal time.

Re: The next two years of software engineering

#170

Post by rowanajmarshall »

lelanthran wrote: post #158
kasey_junk wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jevons paradox and it’s not a fallacy. It’s an observable behavior. The problem is it’s not predictive.

> Jevons paradox and it’s not a fallacy. It’s an observable behavior. The problem is it’s not predictive. I was referring specifically to this point, which, IMHO, is a fallacy: >>> There seems to be effectively infinite demand for software from consumers and enterprises so the cheaper it gets the more they buy. There is no way to use the word "infinite" in this context, even if qualified, that is representative of re…

As much as I appreciate the difference between literal infinity and consumers' demand for software, there's just so much bad software out there waiting to be improved that I can't see us hitting saturation soon.
Post reply on HN