[deeshee]

I agree. But it's also a mindset game. Experienced devs often approach AI with preconceptions that limit its utility - pride in "craftsmanship, control issues, and perfectionism can prevent seeing where AI truly shines. I've found letting go of those instincts and treating AI as a thought partner rather than just a code generator be super useful. The psychological aspects of how we interact with these tools might be as important as the technical ones.

Bunch of comments online also reflect how there's a lot of "butthurt" developers shutting things down with a closed mind - focusing only on the negatives, and not letting the positives go through.

I sound a bit philosophical but I hope I'm getting my point across.

[financltravsty]

What's your track record. What is your current scope of work for Claude Code?

This conversation is useless without knowing the author's skillset and use-case.

[RamblingCTO]

> pride in "craftsmanship, control issues, and perfectionism

sounds like you can't code for shit. guidelines, standards, and formatting have developed for a reason. the reason is: less bugs and maintainability. you sound like the average cocky junior to me.

[Quarrelsome]

> pride in "craftsmanship, control issues, and perfectionism

I mean, do we really want our code base to not follow a coding standard? Or are network code not to consider failure or transactional issues? I feel like all of these traits are hallmarks of good senior engineers. Really good ones learn to let go a little but no senior is going to watch a dev automated or otherwise, circumvent six layers of architecture by blasting in a static accessor or smth.

Craftsmanship, control issues and perfectionism, tend to exist for readability, to limit entropy and scope, so one can be more certain of the consequences of a chunk of code. So to consider them a problem is a weird take to me.