5 ms·

It's unclear what point you're even trying to make, other than that AI has been helpful to you. But surely you understand that if you don't know what a unit tes

It's unclear what point you're even trying to make, other than that AI has been helpful to you. But surely you understand that if you don't know what a unit test is you're probably not in a position to comment on the value of unit testing. > Snobby programmers would never even return an email offering money for their services. Why the would they? I don't respond to the vast majority of emails, and I'm already employed.

carlosjobim 6mo ago
Helpful to me and millions of others. Soon to be billions even. You are employed because somewhere in the pipeline there are paying customers. They don't care about unit tests, they care about having their problems solved. Beware of AI.
- staticassertion 6mo ago
  Right... I mean, no engineer is going to tell you that customers care about unit tests, so I think you're arguing against a straw man here. What engineers will tell you is that bugs cost money, support costs money, etc, and that unit tests are one of the ways we cheaply reduce those costs in order to solve problems, which is what we're in the business of doing. We are all very aware of the fact that customers pay us... it seems totally strange to be that you think we wouldn't be aware of this fact. I suspect this is where the disconnect comes in, much to the point of the article - you seem to think that engineers just write tests and code, but the article points out how silly that is, we spend most of our time thinking about our customers, features, user experience, and how to match that to the technology choices that will allow us to build, maintain, and support systems that meet customer expectations. I think people outside of engineering might be very confused about this, strangely, but engineers do a ton of product work, support work, etc, and our job is to match that to the right technology choices.
  - staticassertion 6mo ago
    Yeeesh. Looking at other posts from that user, they seem to have a serious grudge against software devs, presumably for not responding to their emails. "You should starve" - words taken from another post. Look, no one wanted to write code for you idk what to tell you. Now you can have AI do that for you. Congrats, best of luck. Whatever weird personal issue you have, I doubt anyone was not working for you out of some whatever this perceived snobbery is and it's just like... we all have jobs?
    - carlosjobim 6mo ago
      I don't have a grudge, but there needs to be some balance. Software devs are incredibly well paid compared to other professionals. It is their responsibility to use their talents to benefit themselves, and if they are out-competed then they should work with something else. They don't have a right to a fantastic career. All other workers have had to go through this when their fields became more automated and efficient. A cargo ship used to have hundreds of crew, now it's a dozen and the amount of cargo on a ship is ten times more. So I will absolutely not cry for a software dev who has to make changes in the face of AI competition. If they're too precious to adapt or take a different job, then starve. > Look, no one wanted to write code for you idk what to tell you. Now you can have AI do that for you. Congrats, best of luck. Me and hundreds of thousands of other organizations who have software needs that were under served by the market. Now we will have AI write that code for us - or more realistically, now we will purchase this software from any of the thousands of boutique software development shops that will emerge, which use AI + talented human developers to serve us. I have the strong impression that programmers in many cases have a good deal of snobbery regarding what tasks they are willing to work on. If it's not giant enterprise software, then it's usually just filed under "hobbyist" or open source. Hopefully many programmers will find a well paying career serving less glamorous customers with software that solves real world problems. But many will have to change their attitude if they want to do that.
      - staticassertion 6mo ago
        > If they're too precious to adapt or take a different job, then starve. Yeah I mean I think everyone is with you except for the "then starve", this is just weirdly combative and lacking in empathy, I find it totally strange. > Me and hundreds of thousands of other organizations who have software needs that were under served by the market. And... you blame software developers for that? You blame software devs for a lack of capacity in the field? So weird. > Now we will have AI write that code for us - or more realistically, now we will purchase this software from any of the thousands of boutique software development shops that will emerge, which use AI + talented human developers to serve us. Okay, I mean, this has always been an option. I guess it will be more of an option now. There have been consulting agencies or "WYSIWYG" editors like Wix or other "low code/ no code" platforms for ages. No one is going to be upset that you're using them. This hostility is totally one sided lol > I have the strong impression that programmers in many cases have a good deal of snobbery regarding what tasks they are willing to work on. We like to work on interesting projects... is that surprising? Is that snobbery? I don't get it. > If it's not giant enterprise software, then it's usually just filed under "hobbyist" or open source. I find this funny because hobbyist/ open source projects are by far the ones that are glamorized by the field, not enterprise software. > Hopefully many programmers will find a well paying career serving less glamorous customers with software that solves real world problems. But many will have to change their attitude if they want to do that. I have no idea where you get this impression from. Most software devs I've worked with are motivated heavily by solving real world problems. I think you have very, very little insight into what software development actually looks like or what software engineers are motivated by. Frankly, this comes off as very much "I was snubbed and now I'm happy that the people who I perceive as having snubbed me will be replaced by AI", which I think is quite lame. You definitely seem to have a resentful tone to your posts that I find weird.
  - carlosjobim 6mo ago
    What I'm saying is that it's a non-issue for customers if software has good engineering or not, if it fulfills their needs at a price they can pay. With AI code we might get software that is an ugly mess underneath, but at least we have it. While human programmers are unwilling to provide this software for even a high price. I could argue that people are better off having nothing to eat rather than having high quality food. But in reality something is better than nothing. There is a gigantic market and a gigantic need of software in the field between hobbyist and enterprise. And AI code will serve that field. Software engineers like you are the people who can best exploit this market segment, probably by leveraging these new AI tools. Otherwise more and more people will do like me and have AI make their own bespoke solutions.
    - staticassertion 6mo ago
      > What I'm saying is that it's a non-issue for customers if software has good engineering or not, if it fulfills their needs at a price they can pay. You think that good engineering is unrelated to fulfilling needs at a price they pay? I think you're confused. Software engineers are tasked with exactly this problem - determining how to deliver utility at a price point. That's... the whole job. We consider how much it costs to run a database, how to target hardware constraints, how to build software that will scale accordingly as new features are added or new users onboard, etc. That's the job... That's sort of the whole point of the article. The job isn't "write code", which is what AI does. The job is "understand the customer, understand technology, figure out how to match customer expectations, business constraints, and technologies together in a way that can be maintained at-cost". > While human programmers are unwilling to provide this software for even a high price. Sorry, but this is just you whining that people didn't want to work for you. Software engineers obviously are willing to provide software in exchange for money, hence... idk, everyone's jobs. > And AI code will serve that field. That may be true, just as no-code solutions have done in the past. > Software engineers like you are the people who can best exploit this market segment, probably by leveraging these new AI tools. Yes, I agree. > Otherwise more and more people will do like me and have AI make their own bespoke solutions. I'm a bit skeptical of this broadly in the long term but it's certainly the case that some portion of the market will be served by this approach.
- agentultra 6mo ago
  The end user of a bridge doesn’t care about most things the engineer who designed it does. They care that the bridge spans the gap and is safe to use. The company building the bridge and the group financing its construction care about a few more things like how much it will cost to provide those things to the end user, how long it will last. The engineer cares about a few more things: will the tolerances in the materials used in the struts account for the shearing forces of the most extreme weather in the region? So it is with software. You might not need a blueprint if you’re building a shed in your back yard. This is the kind of software that and user might write or script themselves. If it’s kind of off nobody is going to get hurt. In many cities in North America you can’t construct a dwelling with plumbing connections to a sewer and a permanent foundation without an engineer. And you need an engineer and a blueprint to get the license to go ahead with your construction. Because if you get it wrong you can make people in the dwelling sick and damage the surrounding environment and infrastructure. Software-wise this is where you’re handling other people’s sensitive data. You probably have more than one component that needs to interact with others. If you get it wrong people could lose money, assets could get damaged, etc. This is where I think the software industry needs to figure out liability and maybe professionalize a bit. Right now the liability is with the company and the deterrents are basically no worse than a speeding ticket in most cases. It’s more profitable to keep speeding and pay off the ticket than to prevent harm from throwing out sloppy code and seeing what sticks. Then if you are building a sky scraper… well yeah, that’s the large scale stuff you build at big tech. There are different degrees of software with different requirements. While not engineers by professional accreditation, in practice I would say most software developers are doing engineering… or trying. What I agree with in the article is that AI tools make bad engineering easier. That is for people building houses and skyscrapers who should be thinking about blueprints: they are working under assumptions that the AI is “smart” and will build sky-scrapers for them. They’re not thinking about the things they ought to be and less about things that will pass on to the customers: cost and a product that isn’t fit for use. A bridge that falls down if you drive too fast over it isn’t a useful bridge even though it looks like a bridge.

carlosjobim 6mo ago

Helpful to me and millions of others. Soon to be billions even. You are employed because somewhere in the pipeline there are paying customers. They don't care about unit tests, they care about having their problems solved. Beware of AI.

staticassertion 6mo ago
Right... I mean, no engineer is going to tell you that customers care about unit tests, so I think you're arguing against a straw man here. What engineers will tell you is that bugs cost money, support costs money, etc, and that unit tests are one of the ways we cheaply reduce those costs in order to solve problems, which is what we're in the business of doing. We are all very aware of the fact that customers pay us... it seems totally strange to be that you think we wouldn't be aware of this fact. I suspect this is where the disconnect comes in, much to the point of the article - you seem to think that engineers just write tests and code, but the article points out how silly that is, we spend most of our time thinking about our customers, features, user experience, and how to match that to the technology choices that will allow us to build, maintain, and support systems that meet customer expectations. I think people outside of engineering might be very confused about this, strangely, but engineers do a ton of product work, support work, etc, and our job is to match that to the right technology choices.
- staticassertion 6mo ago
  Yeeesh. Looking at other posts from that user, they seem to have a serious grudge against software devs, presumably for not responding to their emails. "You should starve" - words taken from another post. Look, no one wanted to write code for you idk what to tell you. Now you can have AI do that for you. Congrats, best of luck. Whatever weird personal issue you have, I doubt anyone was not working for you out of some whatever this perceived snobbery is and it's just like... we all have jobs?
  - carlosjobim 6mo ago
    I don't have a grudge, but there needs to be some balance. Software devs are incredibly well paid compared to other professionals. It is their responsibility to use their talents to benefit themselves, and if they are out-competed then they should work with something else. They don't have a right to a fantastic career. All other workers have had to go through this when their fields became more automated and efficient. A cargo ship used to have hundreds of crew, now it's a dozen and the amount of cargo on a ship is ten times more. So I will absolutely not cry for a software dev who has to make changes in the face of AI competition. If they're too precious to adapt or take a different job, then starve. > Look, no one wanted to write code for you idk what to tell you. Now you can have AI do that for you. Congrats, best of luck. Me and hundreds of thousands of other organizations who have software needs that were under served by the market. Now we will have AI write that code for us - or more realistically, now we will purchase this software from any of the thousands of boutique software development shops that will emerge, which use AI + talented human developers to serve us. I have the strong impression that programmers in many cases have a good deal of snobbery regarding what tasks they are willing to work on. If it's not giant enterprise software, then it's usually just filed under "hobbyist" or open source. Hopefully many programmers will find a well paying career serving less glamorous customers with software that solves real world problems. But many will have to change their attitude if they want to do that.
    - staticassertion 6mo ago
      > If they're too precious to adapt or take a different job, then starve. Yeah I mean I think everyone is with you except for the "then starve", this is just weirdly combative and lacking in empathy, I find it totally strange. > Me and hundreds of thousands of other organizations who have software needs that were under served by the market. And... you blame software developers for that? You blame software devs for a lack of capacity in the field? So weird. > Now we will have AI write that code for us - or more realistically, now we will purchase this software from any of the thousands of boutique software development shops that will emerge, which use AI + talented human developers to serve us. Okay, I mean, this has always been an option. I guess it will be more of an option now. There have been consulting agencies or "WYSIWYG" editors like Wix or other "low code/ no code" platforms for ages. No one is going to be upset that you're using them. This hostility is totally one sided lol > I have the strong impression that programmers in many cases have a good deal of snobbery regarding what tasks they are willing to work on. We like to work on interesting projects... is that surprising? Is that snobbery? I don't get it. > If it's not giant enterprise software, then it's usually just filed under "hobbyist" or open source. I find this funny because hobbyist/ open source projects are by far the ones that are glamorized by the field, not enterprise software. > Hopefully many programmers will find a well paying career serving less glamorous customers with software that solves real world problems. But many will have to change their attitude if they want to do that. I have no idea where you get this impression from. Most software devs I've worked with are motivated heavily by solving real world problems. I think you have very, very little insight into what software development actually looks like or what software engineers are motivated by. Frankly, this comes off as very much "I was snubbed and now I'm happy that the people who I perceive as having snubbed me will be replaced by AI", which I think is quite lame. You definitely seem to have a resentful tone to your posts that I find weird.
- carlosjobim 6mo ago
  What I'm saying is that it's a non-issue for customers if software has good engineering or not, if it fulfills their needs at a price they can pay. With AI code we might get software that is an ugly mess underneath, but at least we have it. While human programmers are unwilling to provide this software for even a high price. I could argue that people are better off having nothing to eat rather than having high quality food. But in reality something is better than nothing. There is a gigantic market and a gigantic need of software in the field between hobbyist and enterprise. And AI code will serve that field. Software engineers like you are the people who can best exploit this market segment, probably by leveraging these new AI tools. Otherwise more and more people will do like me and have AI make their own bespoke solutions.
  - staticassertion 6mo ago
    > What I'm saying is that it's a non-issue for customers if software has good engineering or not, if it fulfills their needs at a price they can pay. You think that good engineering is unrelated to fulfilling needs at a price they pay? I think you're confused. Software engineers are tasked with exactly this problem - determining how to deliver utility at a price point. That's... the whole job. We consider how much it costs to run a database, how to target hardware constraints, how to build software that will scale accordingly as new features are added or new users onboard, etc. That's the job... That's sort of the whole point of the article. The job isn't "write code", which is what AI does. The job is "understand the customer, understand technology, figure out how to match customer expectations, business constraints, and technologies together in a way that can be maintained at-cost". > While human programmers are unwilling to provide this software for even a high price. Sorry, but this is just you whining that people didn't want to work for you. Software engineers obviously are willing to provide software in exchange for money, hence... idk, everyone's jobs. > And AI code will serve that field. That may be true, just as no-code solutions have done in the past. > Software engineers like you are the people who can best exploit this market segment, probably by leveraging these new AI tools. Yes, I agree. > Otherwise more and more people will do like me and have AI make their own bespoke solutions. I'm a bit skeptical of this broadly in the long term but it's certainly the case that some portion of the market will be served by this approach.
agentultra 6mo ago
The end user of a bridge doesn’t care about most things the engineer who designed it does. They care that the bridge spans the gap and is safe to use. The company building the bridge and the group financing its construction care about a few more things like how much it will cost to provide those things to the end user, how long it will last. The engineer cares about a few more things: will the tolerances in the materials used in the struts account for the shearing forces of the most extreme weather in the region? So it is with software. You might not need a blueprint if you’re building a shed in your back yard. This is the kind of software that and user might write or script themselves. If it’s kind of off nobody is going to get hurt. In many cities in North America you can’t construct a dwelling with plumbing connections to a sewer and a permanent foundation without an engineer. And you need an engineer and a blueprint to get the license to go ahead with your construction. Because if you get it wrong you can make people in the dwelling sick and damage the surrounding environment and infrastructure. Software-wise this is where you’re handling other people’s sensitive data. You probably have more than one component that needs to interact with others. If you get it wrong people could lose money, assets could get damaged, etc. This is where I think the software industry needs to figure out liability and maybe professionalize a bit. Right now the liability is with the company and the deterrents are basically no worse than a speeding ticket in most cases. It’s more profitable to keep speeding and pay off the ticket than to prevent harm from throwing out sloppy code and seeing what sticks. Then if you are building a sky scraper… well yeah, that’s the large scale stuff you build at big tech. There are different degrees of software with different requirements. While not engineers by professional accreditation, in practice I would say most software developers are doing engineering… or trying. What I agree with in the article is that AI tools make bad engineering easier. That is for people building houses and skyscrapers who should be thinking about blueprints: they are working under assumptions that the AI is “smart” and will build sky-scrapers for them. They’re not thinking about the things they ought to be and less about things that will pass on to the customers: cost and a product that isn’t fit for use. A bridge that falls down if you drive too fast over it isn’t a useful bridge even though it looks like a bridge.