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

“Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

blog.senko.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 589 posts

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#361

Post by geon »

blub wrote: post #307
buran77 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a sufficiently complex consumer or enterprise app winds up having big performance problems if people don't know what they're doing w.r.t. the code they write and how they connect systems together with that code. On those complex systems in particular the problems start long before any code is written. A software engineer can create and understand the specs, requirements, design the system, architectural decisions,…

No they can’t do everything before writing a line of code. The design and requirements feed into the code and vice-versa over and over through the lifecycle of a piece of software. Some architecture work and design will be done beforehand, but many details will fall into place as the code is being written, thrown away, adapted, etc. The idea that code is mere transcription - which I see a lot in these AI discussions…

How does not everyone understand this? It's why waterfall development never worked.

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#362

Post by holyknight »

In which world are you living? For most programming jobs, the code is absolutely the easiest part of the whole thing, which is just gatekept into absurd bureaucracy and ceremony. Even if coding became 100x faster with 0 errors tomorrow, the software in most companies would still move at a snail's pace.

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#363

Post by geon »

zormino wrote: post #279
rockemsockem wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK, a sufficiently complex consumer or enterprise app winds up having big performance problems if people don't know what they're doing w.r.t. the code they write and how they connect systems together with that code. Those performance problems start out not mattering much, first it impacts one seldom-used part of the site, then another, but that chips away at users and can eventually tank the product. That doesn't ev…

I can understand when people say the code was the way part, but under the assumption that the system design and architecture are clean, code is high quality or the project is greenfield, and there is proper testing and validation. Then, sure, the lines of code aren't the hardest but that's only because that hardest work was front loaded and given a different name. Even then it's still not always easy.

Getting to a state where those assumptions are true is HARD. And takes a lot of careful programming.

Yes. Once it is true, the code is easy to write. But only because a lot of effort went into making it easy. And keeping it easy is also hard. Without focused effort to keep the code clean and easy to modify, it starts to rot.

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#366

Post by ryan_n »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #233
ryan_n wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But also, there still is a ton of programming that is fundamentally difficult. That's not going anywhere either. And LLMs are useful there too, but they're currently nowhere near replacing the expertise needed to do novel and non-trivial technical work. Genuine question and not trying to be snarky here, I am actually curious: what fields or types of programming does this apply too? I think I've read anecdotes onlin…

LLMs are surprisingly bad at basic CMake, but i don't see why they should be. Much of the truly LLM-difficult code is probably hiding in the libraries we import. Database engines, compilers, efficient data parser, control theory, signal processing, protocol implement-ions, or anything with a 12000 page German ISO standard that need to pass a $12.000 certification lab. But this also compose of such a tiny fraction of…

That makes sense, great answer thank you.

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#367

Post by michaelrpeskin »

chasd00 wrote: post #315
michaelrpeskin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also been doing this professionally for about 30 years, plus another 10 as a hobby/learning before then, so I think I have much of the same experience as you, and I do agree. Although, I think with the advent of LLMs, programming is no longer the hard part. The hard part of programming is the convergence of context management for humans while also presenting it to a computer to do something. Much of data structu…

This is a very good comment, one of the best i've read here. > I would say that "good engineers" or "good coders" found that balance in abstraction to move fast but make abstractions not overkill. i think this is spot on and could be where the concept of "llm's have no taste" comes from. There is art (and science) in determining the right level of abstraction that satisfies the user story in a performant way while le…

I said this in another comment a few weeks back - but, at least for me the "joy" of software development was describing what I wanted and getting it. That used to mean fighting with code and trying to be clever and clean or following the right design pattern. But now, I get "joy" from using English to describe my problem and getting the right answer. When the LLM one-shots it, I get the feedback that I'm describing things correctly and clearly. I'm still getting the same joy just in a different form now. I'm old enough and have been doing this long enough that "giving up writing code" is not sad for me. I'm still expressing my ideas, just differently now.

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#369

Post by xmprt »

aforwardslash wrote: post #150
xmprt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people who say LLMs will replace developers have never built and deployed a real app. I know someone working on an app that they were deploying and after "writing" thousands of lines of code with Codex, they needed help to deploy it despite getting pretty clear (IMO) instructions from the LLM. Later they were struggling to set up a test environment or add backups to the point that I was worried they might…

LLMs will certainly replace most developers. Most developers dont know that "computer" was a profession not long ago (and a quite demanding one). You are conflating "not understanding how to build software" with "not knowing how to write code". Most developers I've crossed paths with couldn't build a consistent library, let alone a complete, well written, architecturally sound and useful application. Sure, I also kno…

> Ask claude, use ssh with key-based auth and he will take care of it :) just saying

This already goes over the heads of most non-developers.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not that LLMs aren't a useful tool or that they won't replace some developers. But rather that software development as a specialty won't go away because most people can't build software with LLMs in a way that won't blow up.

Re: “Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

#370

Post by atomicnumber3 »

hakunin wrote: post #47
bob1029 wrote: post #9

> If coding is easy, how come programmers were in high demand, and have demanded large salaries for years (even before ZIRP)? Because programmers have generally been forced to wear additional, invisible hats that are essential to making the code happen in the first place. Writing code is not hard. Writing correct code is. Knowing what is correct in a setting with paying customers generally involves interacting with t…

> Writing code is not hard. Writing correct code is. Knowing what is correct in a setting with paying customers generally involves interacting with those customers. That's like saying "building a car is not hard, building a real car that you can use and that passes regulation is". IOW, writing code is hard in every reasonable context.

The problem is that non-technical people just see The Code. And now when they prompt an LLM they also see The Code. Voila - finally we don't need those pesky engineers.

Communicating like this is to try to get them to understand that The Code is barely about the text on the screen and is instead about much more - both abstract in the code (but how on earth do you explain that to someone nontechnical without just sounding like "no trust me my job is really hard, I promise.") and also in all the external stuff - the world The Code lives in (users, ops, support staff...).

Is it a perfect analogy? Of course not, and I'd never explain it like this to someone technical. But they're not the audience.

---

Adjacent: I've always gotten the feeling that even the most well-meaning/trusting nontechnical leaders have always been fairly nonplussed by software complexity and software development.

Deep down, they seem to think it can't possibly be that hard, despite the fact they can't write it themselves. Sometimes, even worse, they have dabbled in writing small, or even medium-sized solo projects. And think - well isn't software engineering just doing that but with other people? And their attitudes can reflect them, sometimes all the time, sometimes just slipping through when under duress like delayed projects etc.

And yet despite their attitudes, they then also find:

- if they try to outsource, they have a bad time

- if they try to proooompt, they have a bad time

- if they try to pay less, they have a bad time

and so the invisible hand of the free market itself forces their hand in paying prodigious salaries and fighting to retain talent. And all throughout they remain internally nonplussed even if they manage to keep up appearances.

Post reply on HN