41–50 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you justify it against all the other abstractions you've accepted and no longer know how to do (or never learned in the first place). Why are the current set of manual steps the right level to be permanently aware of?
The best engineers hand-edit .git Edit: But actually, one of my favorite Git explainers is https://wildlyinaccurate.com/a-hackers-guide-to-git/
All above comes at a cost of author slowly starting to understand less and less code in their own projects. Then in other projects as well. After the initial boost is over they will have to pay money just to stay afloat because they have already outsourced their thinking. I’m not anti AI, but I’m very worried about this bragging “you are not better engineer if you do things yourself”. Yes, you are, it all comes in sm…
How do you justify it against all the other abstractions you've accepted and no longer know how to do (or never learned in the first place). Why are the current set of manual steps the right level to be permanently aware of?
TBH writing shell scripts (and automation tools generally) is the grunt work I most love it for. Git commits and PR descriptions? Those are probably best at least edited/tuned by humans. Because they're meant to be read by humans.
Our commit messages have become useless since we adopted a shared agent skill for making commits. The LLM tends to fill the messages with irrelevant details while still failing to mention what the change actually does.
I was team / tech lead on the last contract gig I had, and I had a policy in writing that people should write their own commit messages and PR descriptions. For this reason and others.
... And follow conventional commit format. Linear commits. Rebasing / fast-forward, no merge commits. Etc. etc.
Nobody paid any attention. The git history was next to useless. Bisecting would be completely impossible. People were mostly just pumping and dumping. I could have drawn a hard red line but the founder was the worst for it.
We're doomed.
All above comes at a cost of author slowly starting to understand less and less code in their own projects. Then in other projects as well. After the initial boost is over they will have to pay money just to stay afloat because they have already outsourced their thinking. I’m not anti AI, but I’m very worried about this bragging “you are not better engineer if you do things yourself”. Yes, you are, it all comes in sm…
How do you justify it against all the other abstractions you've accepted and no longer know how to do (or never learned in the first place). Why are the current set of manual steps the right level to be permanently aware of?
No wonder we boot up entire browser engines to write simple text editors. But hey, we gotta be first to market to get that VC money, right?
So on one hand it states: Delivery is becoming a sequence of checks, not a ritual The same thing happens when it is time to deliver. First, I invoke my /definition-of-done skill. It checks whether the implementation covers what was stated in the PR and in the plan. It checks tests and the other validations I care about. It tells me when something looks unusual, broken, or missing. When everything looks good, I invoke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you justify it against all the other abstractions you've accepted and no longer know how to do (or never learned in the first place). Why are the current set of manual steps the right level to be permanently aware of?
A farmer producing meat is a better farmer than me even if I hire my own farmer. If we invent a meta-farmer profession (for those who hired a farmer) I will be great meta-farmer, but still suck as a farmer
Why do these posts always state things like this with maximum confidence and then not even make any attempt to show evidence? "I've got x years of experience trust me bro" is pretty weak.
[0] https://snyk.io/articles/defending-against-glassworm/
Eh, agents commits are always too verbose. I don't need a 3 paragraph mini novel. Design can go in a design docs folder, project info goes in the issue tracker. The commit should be a short summary <1 paragraph for quick context
but that does NOT mean you get to skip understanding the code & whipping the AI in line during implementation
my preferred workflow:
- think hard about the problem before touching the keyboard
- back and forth with the AI, swatting down bad implementation ideas and poking holes
- settle on a detailed implementation plan
- let the AI go for however long it needs to (usually minutes, sometimes hours)
- review, iterate, test
- "this looks good, commit in focused chunks and create a PR"
- review commits & PR summary, hand edit for clarity