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

AI code and software craft

alexwennerberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 157 posts

Re: AI code and software craft

#21

Post by strken »

danpalmer wrote: post #10
jumploops wrote: post #6

> People have said that software engineering at large tech companies resembles "plumbing" > AI code [..] may also free up a space for engineers seeking to restore a genuine sense of craft and creative expression This resonates with me, as someone who joined the industry circa 2013, and discovered that most of the big tech jobs were essentially glorified plumbers. In the 2000s, the web felt more fun, more unique, more…

> joined the industry circa 2013, and discovered that most of the big tech jobs were essentially glorified plumbers Most tech jobs are glorified plumbers. I've worked in big tech and in small startups, and most of the code everywhere is unglamorous, boring, just needs to be written. Satisfaction with the job also depends on what you want out of it. I know people who love building big data pipelines, and people who lo…

Plumbing has certification and industry best practices, and its leaks generally affect a few blocks at most rather than spraying across the entire internet.

Re: AI code and software craft

#22

Post by acedTrex »

will__ness wrote: post #17

> But there are serious limits. [Your coding agent] will lie to you, they don't really understand things, and they often generate bad code. I think that really high quality code can be created via coding agents. Not in one prompt, but instead an orchestration of planning, implementing, validating, and reviewing. Its still engineering work. The code still matters. Its just a different tool to write the code. I'd compa…

> the end result is the same but the method is very different.

I dont think anyone really cares at all about LLM code that is the exact same end result as the hand written version.

It's just in reality the LLM version is almost never the same as the hand written version, it's orders of magnitude worse.

Re: AI code and software craft

#23

Post by nubg »

acedTrex wrote: post #22
will__ness wrote: post #17

> But there are serious limits. [Your coding agent] will lie to you, they don't really understand things, and they often generate bad code. I think that really high quality code can be created via coding agents. Not in one prompt, but instead an orchestration of planning, implementing, validating, and reviewing. Its still engineering work. The code still matters. Its just a different tool to write the code. I'd compa…

> the end result is the same but the method is very different. I dont think anyone really cares at all about LLM code that is the exact same end result as the hand written version. It's just in reality the LLM version is almost never the same as the hand written version, it's orders of magnitude worse.

Speak for yourself.

Re: AI code and software craft

#24

Post by lkey »

Herring wrote: post #3

This argument is basically just the 1800s Luddite vs Industrialist argument recast for a new age. Group A thinks quality is about human agency, and that machines are being used to bypass the apprenticeship system and produce inferior goods. Group B thinks efficiency is the highest priority, and craft is just vanity. Of course as we know we went a third way, and human roles just shifted. I think one promising shift di…

sighs pulling out this quote again:

"Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to >>circumvent standard labor practicesLuckily, the brave government's troops, show trials and making '"machine breaking" (i.e. industrial sabotage) a capital crime"' solved the crisis of these awful, entitled workers' demands once and for all and across all time.

I'm sure that any uppity workers in our present age can also be taught the appropriate lessons.

Re: AI code and software craft

#25

Post by elzbardico »

acedTrex wrote: post #22
will__ness wrote: post #17

> But there are serious limits. [Your coding agent] will lie to you, they don't really understand things, and they often generate bad code. I think that really high quality code can be created via coding agents. Not in one prompt, but instead an orchestration of planning, implementing, validating, and reviewing. Its still engineering work. The code still matters. Its just a different tool to write the code. I'd compa…

> the end result is the same but the method is very different. I dont think anyone really cares at all about LLM code that is the exact same end result as the hand written version. It's just in reality the LLM version is almost never the same as the hand written version, it's orders of magnitude worse.

But a lot of people don't think like this, and we must come to the unavoidable conclusion that the LLM code is better than what they are used to, be their own code, or from their colleagues.

Re: AI code and software craft

#26

Post by acedTrex »

nubg wrote: post #23
acedTrex wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the end result is the same but the method is very different. I dont think anyone really cares at all about LLM code that is the exact same end result as the hand written version. It's just in reality the LLM version is almost never the same as the hand written version, it's orders of magnitude worse.

Speak for yourself.

I mean yes, i am speaking for myself. I am drowning in mountains of LLM slop patches lol. I WISH people were using LLMs as "just another tool to generate code, akin to a vim vs emacs discussion."

Re: AI code and software craft

#27

Post by Terr_ »

fwip wrote: post #9
convolvatron wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think it's the same at all. when weaving was displaced, yes some people were pissed about losing their livelihood, but the quality of the cloth didn't diminish. when CNC came for machining, no one really bitched, because the computers were just removing the time consuming effort of moving screws by hand. when computers write code, or screenplays, the quality right now is objectively much worse. that might chan…

The available quality of cloth did, in fact, diminish.

Hold up, why it changed matters to parent-poster's argument. Consider the difference between:

1. "The technology's capability was inferior to what humans were creating, therefore the quality of the output dropped."

2. "The costs of employing humans created a floor to the price/quality you could offer and still make a profit. Without the human labor, a lower-quality product became possible to offer."

The first is a question of engineering, the second is a question of economic choice and market-fit.

Re: AI code and software craft

#28

Post by rapind »

lkey wrote: post #24
Herring wrote: post #3

This argument is basically just the 1800s Luddite vs Industrialist argument recast for a new age. Group A thinks quality is about human agency, and that machines are being used to bypass the apprenticeship system and produce inferior goods. Group B thinks efficiency is the highest priority, and craft is just vanity. Of course as we know we went a third way, and human roles just shifted. I think one promising shift di…

sighs pulling out this quote again: "Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to >>circumvent standard labor practices Luckily, the brave government's troops, show trials and making '"machine breaking" (i.e. industrial sabotage) a capital crime"' solved the crisis of these awful, entitled workers' demands…

I wonder if the workers of the time were as responsible for the propaganda as we are... It seems like the ultimate heist when capital can get labour to propagate their own messaging.

Re: AI code and software craft

#29

Post by rescbr »

kxbnb wrote: post #18

The framing of craft vs. slop misses something important: most production software quality problems aren't about aesthetics or elegance, they're about correctness under real-world conditions. I've been using AI coding tools heavily for the past year. They're genuinely useful for the "plumbing" - glue code, boilerplate, test scaffolding. But where they consistently fail is reasoning about system-level concerns: author…

> Craft isn't about writing beautiful code. It's about having developed judgment for which corners you can't cut - something that comes from having been burned by the consequences.

That's why I'm of the opinion that for senior developers/architects, these coding agents are awesome tools.

For a junior developer? Unless they are of the curious type and develop the systems-level understanding on their own... I'd say there's a big chance the machine is going to replace their job.

Re: AI code and software craft

#30

Post by Herring »

lkey wrote: post #24
Herring wrote: post #3

This argument is basically just the 1800s Luddite vs Industrialist argument recast for a new age. Group A thinks quality is about human agency, and that machines are being used to bypass the apprenticeship system and produce inferior goods. Group B thinks efficiency is the highest priority, and craft is just vanity. Of course as we know we went a third way, and human roles just shifted. I think one promising shift di…

sighs pulling out this quote again: "Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to >>circumvent standard labor practices Luckily, the brave government's troops, show trials and making '"machine breaking" (i.e. industrial sabotage) a capital crime"' solved the crisis of these awful, entitled workers' demands…

Ordinarily yes I’d love to overthrow the bourgeoisie (check my history, I live in flagged threads), but this time I think this thread is really just about the evolution of the profession.
Post reply on HN