[ElatedOwl]

I think good code is even more important now.

People talk about writing the code itself and being intimate with it and knowing how every nook and cranny works. This is gone. It’s more akin to on call where you’re trudging over code and understanding it as you go.

Good code is easy to understand in this scenario; you get a clear view of intent, and the right details are hidden from you to keep from overwhelming you with detail.

We’re going to spend a lot more time reading code than before, better make it a very good experience.

[love2read]

none of this even kind of addresses why the article implies that people stopped writing good code. why are we going to spend "a lot more reading code than before"? is this an ai generated comment?

[ElatedOwl]

The author effectively argues deep thinking is dead, that people are no longer going to take the time to understand the problem and solution space before they solve it.

I think that’s untrue, I think it’s /more/ important than before. I think you’re going to have significantly more leverage with these tools if you’re capable of thinking.

If you’re not, you’re just going to produce garbage extremely fast.

The use of these tools does not preclude you from being the potter at the clay wheel.

[amitprasad]

Just because you or I may invest effort into deep-thinking, it does not mean that others will.

I'm not worried about this at Modal, but I am worried about this in the greater OSS community. How can I reasonably trust that the tools I'm using are built in a sound manner, when the barrier to producing good-looking bad code is so low

[yoyohello13]

We’re already there. Seeing OpenClaw and the new thing LocalGPT on the front page. It’s clear these projects are pretty heavily vibe coded and I have no trust that they are tested, secure or even work as advertised. It’s going to suck when all projects become that. When you can’t trust that a library works as advertised.

[love2read]

> How can I reasonably trust that the tools I'm using are built in a sound manner, when the barrier to producing good-looking bad code is so low

Honest answer: You never could.

[majormajor]

Hm? The article is pretty clear about two claims, IMO: (1) good code has been rare for a long time because the job is a pragmatic one and not a philosophical one but that sometimes "good code" pays off down the line, and (2) possibly the "pays off down the line" will be less important in the future with AI coding tools.

And the comment by 'ElatedOwl is pretty directly responding to that second idea.

[willtemperley]

LLMs also make refactoring for readability, simplicity and performance far easier.

Nothing has fundamentally changed! A good solution is a good solution.

I do worry that the mental health of developers will take a downturn if they’re forced into a brain rotting slop shovelling routine, however.

So yes readability and good concise code is still important.