[travisgriggs]

Disclaimer: I use Zed Pro and GPT daily to code. I have been coding for money since 1989.

I view the rise of these tools and particularly efficacy in programming as an indictment against modern programming. The modern web is both amazing and horrific. If bureaucratic is "using or connected with many complicated rules and ways of doing things" (Britannica), then modern programming may be the ultimate poster child. Sure, we love to slap this on "civil institutions", but the fact that I need an automaton, answers based on probability, to guide me in how to navigate doing some of the simplest things, is pretty sad (IMO).

I used to counsel aspiring new programmers, "It's not about knowing a certain language or framework. Your single most important asset will be an aptitude to constantly keep relearning. Some trends will stand out along the way, but you'll never quit learning new tools and languages".

Maybe it's just my age, but it feels like we've overflowed at some point.

Early programming was too electrical, too mathematical, so pioneers sought to close the gap between coding and human think. And yet, after years of speculative funding, what we're left with, is a whole different set of problems.

[jmhmd]

I agree with this sentiment. I have always wished, maybe naively, for the type of computing environment that makes possible things you see in sci-fi movies and shows, where someone can simple "route all power to the forward lazers!" or "use the power cells from your rifle to keep life support systems online!" This imaginary world where technological components are trivially interchangeable, compatible, reusable. My impression is that if you even asked a smartphone hardware engineer to replace a broken iPhone camera with a leftover working camera from an Android phone that, at best it would be an extraordinarily difficult task, and at worst, just may not be possible.

[jrowen]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. That usage of bureaucratic seems strange. I think your counsel is more true than ever. Moving forward, search is the meta-skill. The information is readily available, you can do anything if you know how to find it.

The automaton is not categorically different from the book or the teacher.

The fact that some number of people aren't adept at these things is an invariant of human nature, don't blame the tools getting better.

[jncfhnb]

A non trivial problem is that documentation is difficult to write, search, and read. And that makes learning hard. Whereas AI makes learning easy. I’m fairly frequently impressed at how well it understands unreal engine.

[heisenbit]

A lot what has been heaped upon us is accidental complexity in Brook‘s silber bullet sense. LLM‘s cut straight through it, collapsing the silos of knowledge (and eco systems) build around languages and frameworks.

[travisgriggs]

I view them as lossy compressors. Kind of like a JPEG for algorithms. And while our optical nerve stack tends to be pretty good at glossing over and correcting for erroneous pixels, it has been my experience that computers do not possess that kind of discernment. Thy do exactly as they're told. And a "pixel off" here and there in the execution of boolean logic can quietly not matter, or it can unravel pretty epically.

[simultsop]

A few more speculative years, there will be no programming left.