They lied to you. Building software is hard

If you were given a copy of the entire software stack that runs YouTube I would bet $1000000 you can't take all of YouTube's customers. Businesses are more than just the software.

I have to strongly disagree with that. I provably never was as productive as when I used REALbasic, which was a classical RAD tool. I sold the software made with it successfully for quite a while.

As most people here probably know, it's now called Xojo and in my opinion both somewhat outdated and expensive. So I'm not recommending it, but credit to were it's due and it certainly was due for early versions of REALbasic when it was still affordable shareware.

The problem with all RAD tools seems to be that they eventually morph into expensive corporate tools no matter what their origins were. I don't know any cross-platform exception (I don't count Purebasic as RAD and it's also not structured).

As for AI, it seems to be just the same. The right AI tool accelerates the easy parts so you have more time for the hard parts. Another thing that bothers me a lot when alleged "professionals" are arguing against everyday computing for everyone. They're accelerating the death of general computing platforms and in the end no one will benefit from that.

strongly disagree with this article. I think using the tools can actually directly lead to a junior engineer getting closer to a senior engineer. Telling junior engineers that they have to get better at typing out code in order to be better engineers misses what actually makes someone a better engineer.

It's worth actually being specific about what differentiates a junior engineer from a senior engineer. There's two things: communication and architecture. the combination of these two makes you a better problem solver. talking to other people helps you figure out your blindspots and forces you to reduce complex ideas down to their most essential parts. the loop of solving a problem and then seeing how well the solution worked gives you an instinct for what works and what doesn't work for any given problem. So how do agents make you better at these two things?

If you are better at explaining what you want, you can get the agents to do what you want a lot better. So you'd end up being more productive. I've seen junior developers that were pretty good problem solvers improve their ability to communicate technical ideas after using agents.

Senior engineers develop instincts for issues down the road. So when they begin any project, they'll take this into account and work by thinking through this. They can get the agents to build towards a clean architecture from the get go such that issues are easily traceable and debuggable. Junior developers get better at architecture by using agents because they can quickly churn through candidate solutions. this helps them more rapidly learn the strengths and weaknesses of different architectures.

There are mixed views here. Some are making the claim relevant to the Silver Bullet observation, than LLMs are cutting down time spent on non-essential work. But the view that's really driving hype is that the machine can do essential work, design the system for you, and implement it, explore the possibility space and make judgments about the tradeoffs, and make decisions.

Now, can it actually do those things? Not in my estimation. But from the perspective of a less experienced developer it can sure look like it does. It is, after all, primarily a plausibility engine.

I'm all for investing in integrating these generative tools into workflows, but as of yet they should not be given agency, or even the aesthetic appearance of agency. It's too tempting to the human brain to shut down when it looks like someone or something else is driving and you're just navigating and correcting.

And eventually, with a few more breakthroughs in architecture maybe this tech actually will make digital people who can do all the programming work, and we can all retire (if we're still alive). Until then, we need to defend against sleepwalking into a future run by dumb plausibility-generators being used as accountability sinks.

... and the biggest problem is that the people who _do_ know how hard it is to build software are the ones whose input on the matter is most likely to be discounted as "sour grapes"/"fear of obsolescence".