[wcedmisten]

> Software engineering is a mostly solved problem at this point

I guess that's why Claude Code has 0 open issues on Github. Since software engineering is solved, their autonomous agents can easily fix their own software much better and faster than human devs. They can just add "make no mistakes" to their prompt and the model can solve any problem!

Oh wait, they have 5,000+ open issues on Github[1]. I'm yet to be convinced that this is a solved problem

[1]: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues

[wg0]

The OP probably is the only person in their team. There's no other plausible explanation of this level of AI psychosis.

PS: All in for AI agents I use all the time but sorry - SE is not a solved problem. Yet.

[turlockmike]

We have 80 engineers.

[archagon]

Indeed. In my view, "software engineering is a solved problem" is a roughly equivalent statement to "writing is a solved problem." I'm convinced that people who say this were never serious engineers to begin with, viewing code entirely as a means to an end.

To me, code is both the canvas and deterministic artifact of deep thinking about program logic and data flow, as well as a way to communicate these things to other developers (including myself in the future). Outsourcing that to some statistical amalgam implies that the engineering portion of software engineering is no longer relevant. And maybe it's not for your run-of-the-mill shovelware, but as a profession I'd like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.

Also, does the sum total of software engineering done up to this point provide a sufficient training set for all future engineering? Are we really "done"? That sounds absurd to me.

I think people spouting absolutist statements like "software engineering is a solved problem" should largely be ignored.