[JohnFen]

> be honest, you don't read a book on every API call you copy from Stack Overflow.

I don't, because I don't copy code from SO in the first place. But when I'm using or encountering an API that I'm not terribly familiar with, I absolutely do read the documentation for it. It's part of my continuing education and how I maintain a diverse professional skillset.

[gorjusborg]

Same here, I've very rarely ever copy/pasted code out of stackoverflow.

The response to my comment above is an example of what I was describing, and I don't mean it as an insult (though I understand if it is taken that way). People don't all treat software development the same.

The 'rush to action' types are more willing to shortcut the thought part of the work that others might. They are more willing to embrace AI codegen, as coding for them is not about reifying understanding.

If I were to adopt AI code generation, I'd still have to read the code to understand, which nullifies some of its value.

I do think AI code generation as a way to start designs could be good. But again, if I need to expose company code to do that, it probably isn't worth it.

[jimmaswell]

> coding for them is not about reifying understanding.

I don't agree with the implication that I have a deficit in understanding. I would more say that I focus my understanding where it matters.

For example, in web dev this would be a thorough fundamental understanding of the DOM and what interacts with it (JS/HTML/CSS, especially the warts of JS), the performance/responsiveness costs of doing things certain ways, what runs synchronously and how to use that to make the best user experience (avoid flashing/repainting with a quick synchronous thing but longer things should be async..), the overarching architecture of your codebase and how modules should fit into it, what your internal API's do..

If you're rock solid on all of that, the really important stuff of your domain, then you'll have smooth sailing whatever you do. The rest is quite often incidental. Copilot/stackoverflow/some guy on IRC says org.apache.util3.json.JSON.IsValidJson will validate my json, and I already have org.apache.util3 installed? Great, moving on to the rest of the work I have to do building this service..

If that API call blows up on me later, I'll investigate deeper, but my sense of what's important to investigate deeply rarely fails me at this point in my career. The org.apache.util3 probably have little interesting to teach me, but when Firefox started supporting raw JS modules, you bet I thoroughly looked into that.

[JohnFen]

I think it's a difference in approach and goals. One approach isn't better than another -- it all depends on the person and what their overall goal is.

Personally, I've found that very often, things I've learned that were apparently unrelated to the task at hand gives me a key insight in how to approach the task at hand in a better way. That broad knowledge base is a large part of the value I bring to the job. This continuing education is not limited to technological topics -- any knowledge from any domain may be useful to me as a dev.

This is why I go out of my way to learn things as deeply as is practical, even (or especially) if that knowledge is much more than what I need for the immediate task at hand. I'm taking a natural opportunity to advance my overall knowledge and skillset. The immediate task at hand is only part of what I'm being paid to do. Another part is expanding my knowledge base. A huge part of what I want out of any job is to expand my education.

Other devs don't have that as their goal, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's just a different style and different overall goals, is all.

[gorjusborg]

I wasn't implying you lacked understanding.

I was describing two different general approaches people use to write software.

Sorry to use your post as an example. I don't know anything about you outside your posts. Please don't take it personally.