liampulles

A major part of my job (and this was true before the "AI boom") is saying no.

No we can't call the CRM from our client side using a static bearer token even though their docs say we can. No we can't simply switch to Postgres even though it supports 99% of the same SQL we currently use. No we can't simply block usernames which are "clearly" profane.

But if we can chat about it, then we can see what the REAL problem is, and then we can come up with a fitting and simple solution.

The problem is that I have an AI colleague who is way more energetic and willing than I am. They love to talk, they seem to ramble on endlessly about any subject. And its the kind of solution oriented talk my PM loves to hear. And indeed my <insert senior role here> talks to them (or really, lets them talk), and draws up a comprehensive and confident plan to do X. I pick up the plan and discover problems with X, let alone the plan to do it.

I feel nervous about raising issues with X or going through the plan again though, because my other human colleagues are already speeding through the work for Y and Z that my AI colleague is aiding with.

And so maybe I'll raise my biggest concerns with X and not sweat the small stuff. Maybe next time I won't raise my neck at all, noting the gleaming axe sitting in the corner.

You might be right, it was a while ago.

Even better, the Shrek DVD came with software you could run on the computer, including a tool to dub lines and play them back. Good fun as a kid!

Notable special features I've seen on DVDs:

* The IT crowd season 1 had leetspeak and base64 encoded subtitles (won't spoil what the encoding decodes to).

* Goodfellas has a commentary track with the central criminal and the FBI agent who arrested him.

* The Simpsons (around season 9 if I recall) has a hidden commentary track (not accessable by menus) where two of the writers fairly candidly explain the quality dip that was to follow, and have an impromptu phone call with the illusive John Swartzwelder.

The problem is that there really is limited space in a DVD, and if you care about the actual movie, you want as much bitrate as possible. Some DVDs can look almost HD with enough bitrate.

So no, I don't want animated menus or worthless features. Put a commentary track - that has high extra value to size ratio - but leave it to that.

It depends really on what you actually want to do. I tend to make a few helper funcs for different kinds of things I want to do. For example, a helper funcs to accept anonymous job funcs and collect output. Then you can compose programs out of those higher level blocks.

If you've written a few GenServers, I'm not sure one would describe it as "magic" in quite the same way. I wouldn't anyway.

I know many programmers for whom "developing domain understanding" is an abstract concept (if indeed, it is a concept for them at all). But in the age of big AI, I see more need for this, not less.

At least this is my observation: when my colleagues have been wholesale chucking stuff over to Claude, they've then been confronted with classic XY-Problem shit, poor user experiences, and over-complex solutions (which will mount future problems regardless of whether a person or an agent iterates on that code). Much of this can be solved by actually sitting down and thinking about it, and I mean at a code design level, not just a speccing level.

Many people don't realize that there are more useful outputs to solving a problem than just a mere solution. Obviously if one has a contractor mindset (you don't care about the after effects of a system) then this is of no relevance to you. Some companies promote that mindset, certainly ones that have no broader aspirations then getting acquired soon. That's fine - but many companies actually are about sustainability, and understanding in these places is paramount.

Fair.

I agree with you, generics reduced the simplicity. Still, better than many alternatives.

Also - and this is very subjective - I find developers who have similarly low view of software development and high view of simple languages, to be very good team mates. We can laugh at the realities and move on pragmatically.

I have a strong belief (mostly borne out by my years as Java dev) that the larger the possibility space of a language (and its ecosystem) the more room there is for inappropriate use and unclear code. Add time and an assortment of rolling devs of mixed ability level, and crap mounts faster then a "simpler" language.

Let me be clear: Do I think it is possible to write good, clear, performant code in Java? Of course - Java can be used to write great software. The problem is that in Java there exist an extraordinary set of variations of a sufficient implementation, many of which are package protected abstract static horrors shows. And that will manifest over time if you add different individual developers. Else the project must engage in bureaucracy and control, where you have meetings over style conventions or hardline architects who come to constrain the joy of programming in the devs.

Its much better when the language itself constrains you, then everyone can just move on. I feel Go, though certainly not perfect, meets this niche.

Java consistently introduces lots of exciting functionality into the language. That's a big part of my dislike and active avoidance of it.

Honesty does not just mean reporting facts. It also requires having an understanding of the scope of your knowledge and then endeavouring to communicate that scope effectively.

At least one of those things is missing here.

The only thing I'd need and want from my office suite for AI are for it to stay in sync with a disk file.

Then I can do stuff to the XLSX with Claude, and work on the spreadsheet in my spreadsheet editor.

What I DONT want is for my office suite to have any limiting AI features built in.