[strangescript]

If your outlook is 10 years then for sure, its valid. I am not sure how you come to that conclusion logically though. At the beginning of the year we had 0 code agents. Now we have dozens, some are basically free, (of various degrees of quality, sure).

The last 2-3 months of releases have been an unprecedented whirlwind. Code writing will be solved by the end of 2026. Architecture, maybe not, but formatting issues isn't architecture.

[bopbopbop7]

Code writing was solved in 1997 when Dreamweaver was released.

[oblio]

Nope, it was solved with Visual Basic in 1991. And with Nextstep in 1989. And with...

I really dislike people comparing GenAI with compilers. Compilers largely do mechanic transformations, they do almost 0 logic changes (and if they do, they're bugs).

We are in an industry that's great at throwing (developing) and really bad at catching (QA) and we've just invented the machine gun. For some reason people expect the machine gun to be great at catching, or worse, they expect to just throw things continuously and have things working as before.

There is a lot of software for which bugs (especially data handling bugs) don't meaningfully affect its users. BUT there isn't a lot of software we use daily and rely on for which that's the case.

I know that GenAI can help with QA, but I don't really see a world where using GenAI for both coding and QA gets us to where we want to go, unless as some people say, we start using formal verification (or other very rigorous and hopefully automatable advanced verification), at which point we'll have invented a new category of programmers (and we will need to train all of them since the vast majority of current developers don't know about or use formal verification).

[oblio]

It's similar with every technology, there's a reason we have sigmoids.

In 1960 they were planning nuclear powered cars and nuclear mortars.