621–630 of 886 posts
In other words, they are very economical replacements for middle managers. Have at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure I can clear it up. What happens is once they are into a potential deal, they go into exclusivity with the buyer, and we get brought in for a wack of interviews and going through their docs. Part of that period includes NDAs all around, and the agreement that they give us access to whatever we need (with sometimes some back and forth over IP). So could they lie? Technically yes, but as we ask to see things to dem…
> I can say that finding real devs who have all those traits is not easy! Sounds like some very high bar to meet, that's for sure! > We typically have two days of interviews with them and we specifically talk about tech debt. > Our job is to ask the right questions and ask to see the right things to get the goods. We get to look at code, Jira, roadmap docs, internal dev docs, test runner reports, monitoring and load…
Also, you'd be surprised how much we can find out. We are talking directly to devs, and we're good at it. They are usually very relieved to be talking to real coders (e.g., I'm doing a PhD in music with Scheme Lisp and am an open source author, most of our folks are ex CTOs are VP Engs) and the good dev leaders understand that this is their chance to get more resource allocation to address debt post-acquisition. The CEOs can often be hand wavy BS'sers, but the folks who have to run the day to dev process are usually happy to unload.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure I can clear it up. What happens is once they are into a potential deal, they go into exclusivity with the buyer, and we get brought in for a wack of interviews and going through their docs. Part of that period includes NDAs all around, and the agreement that they give us access to whatever we need (with sometimes some back and forth over IP). So could they lie? Technically yes, but as we ask to see things to dem…
Sounds about right. The startup I worked for (acquired by a FANG) turned over the whole code base, for example.
The argument: "The New Generation of Programmers Will Be Less Prepared" is too cynical. Most of us aren't writing algorithms anyway, programmers may, but not Software Engineers which I really think the author is referring to.
Core libraries make it so SWE's don't have to write linked lists. Did that make our generation "less prepared" or give us the opportunity to focus our time on what really matters, like delivering products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. It's the current generation's version of what happened with the advent of Javascript frameworks about 15 years ago, when suddenly web devs stopped learning how computers actually work. There will always be high demand for software engineers who actually know what they're doing, can debug complex code bases, and can make appropriate decisions about how to apply technology to business problems. That said, AI a…
> I wouldn't want to be entering the job market in the next couple of years.... I bet there's a software dev employment boom about 5 years away once it becomes obvious competent people are needed to unwind and rework all the llm generated code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really, that's what you're going with, arguing against the business acumen of the world's second richest person, and the only one at that scale with individual majority control over their company? As for the Metaverse, it was always intended as a very long-term play which is very early to be judged, but as an owner of a Quest headset, it's already going great for me.
Are you really claiming that it's inherently wrong to argue against somebody who is rich?
>Zuckerberg, as always, is well known for making excellent business decisions that lead to greater sector buy in.
I work in tech diligence. This means the companies I talk to cannot lie or refuse to answer a question (at risk of deals failing through and being sued to obvilion). Which means we get the hear the real effects of tech debt all time. I call it the silent killer. Tech debt paralyzes companies all the time, but nobody hears about it because there's zero advantage to the companies in sharing that info. I'm constantly go…
My work puts me in a similar position, but when they've gone bankrupt, and I see same thing. It's common to not invest in good enough developers early enough to manage to delete, refactor, upgrade and otherwise clean their software in time to be able to handle growth or stagnation on the business side. Once I saw a software that was built mostly by one person, in part because he did the groundwork by pushing straight…
This article is entirely built on 2 big and wrong assumptions: 1. AI code ability will be the same as is today 2. Companies will replace people for AI en masse at a given moment in time Of course both these assumptions are wrong, the quality of code produced by AI will improve dramatically as model evolves. And is not even just the model itself. The tooling, the Agentic capabilities and workflow will entirely change…
Not my experience. I spend as much time reading through and replacing wrong AI generated code as I do writing my own code, so it's really wasting my time more often than helping. It's really hit or miss, and about the only thing the AI gets right most often is writing console.log statements based on the variable I've just assigned, and that isn't really "coding". And even then it gets it right only about 75% of the time. Sure, that saves me some time, but I'm not seeing the supposed acceleration AI is hyped as giving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that LLMs are only going to make people with real tech/programming skills much more in demand, as younger programmers skip straight into prompt engineering and never develop themselves technically beyond the bare minimum needed to glue things together. The gap between people with deep, hands-on experience that understand how a computer works and prompt engineers will become so insanely deep. Somebody needs to…
I think we who are already in tech have this gleeful fantasy that new tools impair newcomers in a way that will somehow serve us, the incumbents, in some way. But in reality pretty much anyone who enters software starts off cutting corners just to build things instead of working their way up from nand gates. And then they backfill their knowledge over time. My first serious foray into software wasn't even Ruby. It wa…
I've had to work with developers that are over dependent on LLM's, one didn't even know how to undo code, they had to ask an LLM to undo. Almost as if the person is a zombie or something. It's scary to witness. And as soon as you ask them to explain their rationale for the solution they came up with - dead silence. They can't, because they never actually _thought_.