[softwaredoug]

In the last few decades, we went from a small handful of programming languages / libraries to a massive cambrian explosion from Github-fueled open source. Everyone's choice of Javascript framework became a dumb pissing contest and source of identity. A cudgel used at meetings to look down on some other way of doing things.

I hope AI liberates us from that dumb facade of pretend innovation. In some ways, us programmers got way too full of ourselves and filled our lives with pretend work porting apps from one thing to the next thing with no actual change in end-user value

[youknownothing]

I think AI is going to make this even worse, because now every person and their mom think that they can create a prompt carefully enough so as to create a new library with their own philosophy.

[fcarraldo]

100%. A lot of these AI anxiety driven odes to the loss of craft have me wondering whether anyone cares about the value being provided to the user (or the business), which is the part that is actually your job.

Elegant, well-written and technically sound projects will continue to exist, but I’ve seen too many “well crafted” implementations of such technically vexing features as “fetching data and returning it” that were so overengineered that it should have been considered theft of company money.

[restalis]

"I’ve seen too many «well crafted» implementations of such technically vexing features as «fetching data and returning it» that were so overengineered that it should have been considered theft of company money."

This judgement has merit. However, over the years I got to perceive that over-engineering tendency to be the manifestation of exploratory spirit in one's craft. This is how the Unix got to be created at Bell Labs. To their managers, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie worked on programs like the "ed" editor, thus they cared about "value being provided to the user (or the business)". What was later officially named Unix was not pitched as an operating system, but instead framed mostly just a needed way to organize the growing set of utilities, among other things (i.e. as a footnote). What are the over-engineered bits (and the related gained experience) in a given project may become useful for something else. People (tend to) do this kind of stuff. But should they be blamed, considering the enticing promise of growth and development of new technologies, practiced by employers themselves, as part of recruitment game?

[jimbokun]

Bell Labs employees were explicitly hired to do research.

[initramfs2]

A human problem will not be solved by the additional of AI. It's a force multiplier. If management is shit, it will be shittier. If you get arguments lime this during work, now you will get more, because it's so easy to port or rewrite or even create your own framework now. It's even easier to compete in the pissing match because you can just ask the AI for why xyz is wrong.

I feel like it's important to align team/org goals once in a while -- there's nothing wrong with a refactor or a port, but what's the ROI, etc etc. Yes I agree this framework is better but what do we gain, do we really need it etc