Slop is not necessarily the future

Post by wizzwizz4 » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 12:44 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #202

skydhash wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be especially bad if the architecture is layered with each one having its own invariant. Like in a music player, you may have the concept of a queue in the domain layer, but in the UI layer you may have additional constraints that does not relate to that. Then the agent decide to fix a bug in the UI layer because the description is a UI bug, while it’s in fact a queue bug

Shit like this is why you really have to read the plans instead of blindly accepting them. The bots are naturally lazy and will take short cuts whenever they think you won't notice.

Laziness is a virtue: https://thethreevirtues.com/. The bots aren't lazy: they're incompetent.

Post by Darmani » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

doug_durham wrote: post #507

Darmani wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Code evolvability is almost entirely subjective Explain how? Code evolvability is one of the extrinsic quality markers ( https://www.pathsensitive.com/2023/07/the-11-aspects-of-good... ). If it's easy to add new features without creating bugs, the code is evolvable. Else, it's not. Does not seem very subjective.

Let's take two code bases. A 40 year old legacy Cobol monstrosity being maintained by a staff of well trained engineers that are engaged. The second an idiomatic Haskell application written simply and to the highest standards, but with a staff of junior engineers that specialize in imperative programming. The Cobol code base is much more evolvable. The staff can effectively make changes because they deeply know the p…

I see where you're coming from. I totally agree that how easy it is for a company to change a codebase depends on the talent it has. But i think you can separate the entire codebase+ecosystem+team codebase from the quality of the codebase itself.

To use a simple analogy: you could argue that a modern Macbook is easier to maintain than an old Dell desktop, if the Macbook is owned by a certified Apple technician who knows how to microsolder, and the old Dell desktop is owned by someone who doesn't know how to use a screwdriver. But that doesn't change that, to change a hard drive, one needs much more skill and fancier tools than the other.

Re: Slop is not necessarily the future

Re: Slop is not necessarily the future