7 ms·
Yes and that's okay. Very few people know how to read assembly, instruction sets, binary or even transistor combos. All those layers have been "left behind" to
by irjustin 24d ago
Yes and that's okay.
Very few people know how to read assembly, instruction sets, binary or even transistor combos. All those layers have been "left behind" to become specializations.
In many ways coding is always about abstracting and LLMs can be a form of "higher level coding".
There's lots of problems with this argument, but it's what's happening and we'll be okay. We've always been.
- geraneum 23d ago> All those layers have been "left behind" to become specializations. This never happened. The people who understood and worked with all of that still exist. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not more of them now. What happened is more people who didn’t need to know all of that joined the circus.
- QuantumNoodle 23d agoTell ya what. Go ahead and prompt your agent to build your next project completely from assembly. Why even bother with the higher level inefficiency since it'll be compiled away. Report back how productive debugging is and the velocity of adding new features to a codebase you can't reason about. Without strong coding fundamental, this is what it will feel like for the future of the profession.
- irjustin 23d agoBun? Of sorts? Hard port to Rust in a week and then merged in? No way they reason about that entire thing. A business won't die just because an LLM is the only thing that can reason about a particular code base. At least, not like if a company's own engineers couldn't reason about their own code 2 years ago. I recognize you don't agree with it - our world is changing.