blub

Having a team implies that one was a manager or in a similar role.

These roles are nothing like a technical specialist. It doesn’t hurt to know a few things about the general technical details, but a manager or PO getting involved into technical decisions or being too deep in the code is generally an anti-pattern.

Not comparable with a sloperator. The sloperator is ultimately responsible for what their agents spit out. If something bad happens and the law comes looking, it’s their ass on the line. A sloperator will have to set up and manage some review or QA process by themselves. They will occasionally have to look at code, even if this goes against the entire raison d’être of the sloperator and maybe fix it or ask their minions to.

The “yer a manager Harry!” cope needs to be put to pasture. No company thinks that these people are an actual manager or actually managing anything. They’re still ICs.

The subject of the thread is a competition of skill with rules.

This is the second time that I had to read about your off-topic personal projects where it’s utterly irrelevant that you use AI or not. Add an off-topic tag to your messages at least.

This profession really needs to be shaken up by regulators.

Releasing something to customers which hasn’t been reviewed by any human is gross negligence.

If the market falls apart there is no solution except learning another job which isn’t (yet) doable by AI.

I also tend to believe that the market for SW developers will shrink. In Europe, the AI revolution is hitting at the same time as an economic crisis triggered by expensive energy which is in turn making companies cut costs / local positions and outsource to cheap locations.

The idea that more SW will be built is likely correct, but it might not be a well-paying job or be done in Europe at all.

“It's much simpler to update a webpage than force every user to update their app when something needs to change”

That much is true, but I consider this misfeature a clear disadvantage for the customers using the app, which are at the mercy of the developer. The days of updates being something positive are long gone. Nowadays they’re a mix of UI redesigns requiring relearning stuff, spyware, unwanted bloat, bugs and a couple of actually useful things thrown in.

“ being more distrusting of browser-based apps than native binaries, especially with an undue focus on the risk of the app exfiltrating your data over the network”

Not a logical error. A notarized or app store app can be blocked from accessing the network so there is no data exfiltration happening. The malware risk is negligible thanks to Apple’s vetting.

Too many comments about AI read like inadvertent admissions of incompetence or dysfunctional projects.

Couple of WTFs that come to mind:

* How many bugs did one have per commit, that commits have to noticeably grow in order to not have those bugs in the first place?

* How does one even do software engineering if the (best) developers can’t reason about the code?

The whole point of having teachers is to give intellectually developing and still vulnerable children the best possible support they could have from a human which is ideally interested in their well-being, being responsible and in doing a good job.

Replacing that with AI is the kind of SV-stupid which starts making sense after the educational system was hollowed out for profit reasons and is failing. The human in that system is just checking in and DGAF.

A little cheating here, a bit of fraud there and before one knows it, one is CEO of some AI company.

The revealing thing is how the cheating is seen as normal and how the other people are considered out of touch or wrong.

It’s fair to ask people bragging about their amazing AI skills to show their code or GTFO. Hope it becomes established.

Well, low-stakes clients are usually poor clients because they’re clueless and overly demanding.

Real designers would avoid them in the first place.

The problem’s not so much that the posters are AI generated, but that they’re too crowded and unfocused. Their individual elements seem fine and look good, but when taken as a whole they feel wrong.

This may be a failure mode similar to juniors using AI and making it much harder for seniors to find the bugs, because the code actually looks good at first sight.

I don’t think the blog author actually has any design skills based on the prompts and the AI obviously can’t nudge them in the right direction or help them clarify their brief, like a real designer (i.e. not random online freelancers) would.

These kinds of sanitized corporate, feel-good articles are anything but interesting.

A disgruntled former Azure employee posting what a clusterfuck their SW, including their Rust effort is? That’s both rare and interesting.

“Because incremental improvements don't provide enough value. A stable C++ codebase is best left untouched.”

That was most of your original comment and it remains wrong.

Now you’re talking about specific memory-safety-related features, but you’re making a big assumption. Not everything has to look like Rust. Goodness no! And C++ is still improving in that area too.

“An incremental language change would be to adopt a Rust-like iterator.” One of many possibilities.

“That would be a small language change, but a migration away from begin/end would be a massive churn for C++ codebases that sounds more ridiculous than rewriting in Rust.” Obviously not. Nowadays maybe it could be easily done with AI, even if a Rust-like iterator is not necessarily something that C++ programmers would want.