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

Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 469 posts

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#371

Post by barnabee »

galactus wrote: post #342
barnabee wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like designing data, algorithms, and systems. I like picking the right tools for the job. I like making architectural and user interface (CLI, configuration format, GUI, whatever) decisions. Actually typing code is pretty dull. To the extent that I rarely do it full time (basically only when prototyping or making very simple scripts etc.), even though I love making things. So for me, personally, LLMs are great. I'm…

I think reducing what LLMs do to « typing » is misleading. If it was just typing, you could simply use speech-to-text. But LLMs do far more than that, they shape the code itself. And I think we lose something when we delegate that work to LLMs

It’s not that they replace the act of typing, so much as figuring out how to express the specific algorithm or data structure in a given programming language, typing that, debugging it, etc.

Once I can describe something well, that’s most of the interesting part (to me) done.

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#372

Post by barnabee »

staplers wrote: post #307
barnabee wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like designing data, algorithms, and systems. I like picking the right tools for the job. I like making architectural and user interface (CLI, configuration format, GUI, whatever) decisions. Actually typing code is pretty dull. To the extent that I rarely do it full time (basically only when prototyping or making very simple scripts etc.), even though I love making things. So for me, personally, LLMs are great. I'm…

The assembly line has been mass producing ready-made products for over 100 years and yet product quality, material stability, aesthetic trends, and function design still dominate the purchasing decisions of the general public. Being tapped into fickle human preference and changing utility landscape will be necessary for a long time still. It may get faster and easier to build, but tastemakers and craftsmen still have…

Agree with this. I think LLMs allow more time to bring these things to the fore and more leverage to do them cost efficiently.

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#373

Post by GorbachevyChase »

AstroBen wrote: post #298
GorbachevyChase wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate this sober take. If you hired a remote developer and the only thing you said to that person was “build a program that does this. Make no mistakes” would you expect that to be successful? Are you certain you would get what you wanted?

Any competent developer there is going to push back and get the needed information out of you. LLMs don't know when you're under-specifying the problem.

That’s interesting because that is one feature of Claude code that I like. Given an overly broad problem statement. It does go into a planning loop where it seeks clarifying questions. I think this probably has something more to do with the harness than the model, but you see what I mean. From a user perspective that distinction doesn’t really matter.

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#374

Post by logicchains »

0xcafefood wrote: post #327
logicchains wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But tons of repetition, deeply nested code, etc. If you explicitly make it go over the code file by file to clean up, fix duplication and refactor, it'll look much better, while no amount of "fix this slop" prompting can fix AI prose.

> no amount of "fix this slop" prompting can fix AI prose What's the proof for that? What fundamental limitation of these large language models makes them unable to produce natural language? A lot of people see the high likelihood of ever increasing amounts of generated, no-effort content on the web as a real threat. You're saying that's impossible.

>What fundamental limitation of these large language models makes them unable to produce natural language?

LLMs can get indefinitely good at coding problems by training in a reinforcement learning loop on randomly generated coding problems with compiler/unit tests to verify correctness. On the other hand, there's no way to automatically generate a "human thinks this looks like slop" signal; it fundamentally requires human time, severely limiting throughput compared to fully automatable training signals.

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#375

Post by sobjornstad »

deadbabe wrote: post #359
delecti wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically that's an increase of maybe a couple percent of cost per employee. If it truly does end up being a force multiplier, 2-5% more per dev is a bargain. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that LLMs will replace devs for most companies, but it probably will speed up dev work enough to justify at least a single-digit percent increase in per-dev cost.

“speeding up dev work” is pointless to a company. That benefit goes entirely to the developer and does not trickle down well. You might think “ok, we’ll just push more workload onto the developers so they stay at higher utilization!” Except most companies do not have endless amounts of new feature work. Eventually devs are mostly sitting idle. So you think “Ha! Then we’ll fire more developers and get one guy to do ev…

> Except most companies do not have endless amounts of new feature work. Eventually devs are mostly sitting idle.

At every place I have ever worked (as well as my personal life), the backlog was 10 times longer than anyone could ever hope to complete, and there were untold amounts of additional work that nobody even bothered adding to the backlog.

Some of that probably wouldn't materialize into real work if you could stay more on top of it – some of the things that eventually get dropped from the backlog were bad ideas or would time out of being useful before they got implemented even with higher velocity – but I think most companies could easily absorb a 300% increase or more in dev productivity and still be getting value out of it.

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#376

Post by AStrangeMorrow »

galactus wrote: post #342
barnabee wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like designing data, algorithms, and systems. I like picking the right tools for the job. I like making architectural and user interface (CLI, configuration format, GUI, whatever) decisions. Actually typing code is pretty dull. To the extent that I rarely do it full time (basically only when prototyping or making very simple scripts etc.), even though I love making things. So for me, personally, LLMs are great. I'm…

I think reducing what LLMs do to « typing » is misleading. If it was just typing, you could simply use speech-to-text. But LLMs do far more than that, they shape the code itself. And I think we lose something when we delegate that work to LLMs

We do lose something, but really I still see it as an extension of autocomplete.

I had some pieces of code I wrote I was quite proud of: well documented, clear code yet clever designs and algorithm.

But really what always mattered most to me was designing the solution. Then the coding part, even though I take some pride in the code I write, was most a mean to an end. Especially once I start having to add things like data validation and API layers, plotting analysis results and so many other things that are time consuming but easy and imho not very rewarding

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#377

Post by schubart »

DennisP wrote: post #274
DennisP wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you're using Claude, canceling the IDEs might be poor strategy. Steve Yegge points out in his book that the indexing and refactoring tools in IDEs are helpful to AIs as well. He mentions JetBrains in particular as working well with AI. Your company's IDE savings could be offset by higher token costs.

Perhaps it would help if I include the quote, so from Vibe Coding pages 165-166: > [IDEs index] your code base with sophisticated proprietary analysis and then serve that index to any tool that needs it, typically via LSP, the Language Services Protocol. The indexing capabilities of IDEs will remain important in the vibe coding world as (human) IDE usage declines. Those indexes will help AIs find their way around you…

Would you recommend that book?

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#378

Post by wsve »

arcxi wrote: post #262
dsQTbR7Y5mRHnZv wrote: post #96

> in coding, L.L.M.s take away the drudgery and leave the human, soulful parts to you. I've always hated solving puzzles with my deterministic toolbox, learning along the way and producing something of value at the end. Glad that's finally over so I can focus on the soulful art of micromanaging chatbots with markdown instead.

amidst this whole AI craze it's illuminating to learn how many programmers secretly hated programming all along

This is exactly how I feel. I knew it already to an extent from my time in college, but so many people come into this industry because they want to be able to produce the end product, or just have a stable job that makes good money. Neither of those are bad reasons to get into this profession, but it does make me sad how few peers I have who do programming because they're passionate about the act of programming. The problem solving, the dance of using programming languages to communicate efficiently and robustly to both machines and humans... I'm very sad how enthusiastically so many of my peers just toss that away.

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#379

Post by IanCal »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #339
apsurd wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

interesting comparison to cooking. cooking is a chore and takes effort and people enjoy cooking.

Eating is also not really optional If you're going to spend a pretty good chunk of your lifetime eating, you might as well get good at it so you can enjoy the food you make

Do you want to eat good food or make good food? Is doing the dishes something you hand to a machine or do you always do it by hand? Are there any ingredients you buy pre-made (pesto, curry pastes, do you make your own panko breadcrumbs)?

Re: Coding after coders: The end of computer programming as we know it?

#380

Post by wsve »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #354
bluefirebrand wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ask yourself if there are tasks you have to do which you would rather just have done? Yeah. My laundry, my dishes, my cooking... You know. Chores. Not my software, I actually enjoy building that

You can enjoy doing woodworking without power tools but that's irrelevant to a job where people want it done fast with power tools.

Woodworking analogy for AI is not "power tools vs handsaw", its "power tools vs. wood 3D printer". You don't do any of the creating, you only ideate and allow the machine to do all the creating. It's simply not wood working anymore. Its something else entirely
Post reply on HN