[dgb23]

> The point of a code review is not simply for good code to make it into a codebase, but to build institutional knowledge as people debate and iterate and compromise, slow as it may be.

I feel like this is a very profound insight.

Of course processes like this can become about the immediate utility. Reviewing is then checking work so, it can be merged and used.

But the process is more about us than the code. And we lose the deeper part when we only care about the superficial one.

[Griffinsauce]

There's a Dutch idiom: no shine without friction.

AI is all about losing every possible bit of friction, severely underestimating the value that friction brings.

[palmotea]

> AI is all about losing every possible bit of friction, severely underestimating the value that friction brings.

And it's not just AI, the removal of friction seems to be pursued mindlessly in all areas, with not even an attempt to understand what value it might be providing.

[tempodox]

It’s almost as though some people fall over themselves trying to achieve maximum possible speed without giving any thought to where they want to be heading.

[Henchman21]

It boils down to "Can we? vs. Should we?"

People in tech seem to almost NEVER consider "Should we?"

[fuzzythinker]

"No friction no shine" is easier to remember and get since it's analogous to "no pain no gain"

[ffsm8]

It shows that previously he likely worked only at companies which catered to him, honestly.

That was pretty widespread during 2005-2015, but it's been dropping extremely quickly now.

Developers are generally seen as replaceable cogs. Middle management loves to talk about "scaling" - by which they don't mean scaling how devs understand it, but instead multiplying headcount - because surely throwing x-n devs at the same software will multiply the velocity by the same factor amiright?

The biggest value you can get is by having a very small team of extremely capable people (with extremely high bus factor) being fully in control of everything they do.

Realistically speaking, that'd be impossible to "scale" in the perspective of an MBA however, hence the industry at wide doesn't to that.

You may notice that some employers do, however.

You're just unlikely to get a job there, because their team is already established.

[Henchman21]

For fucks' sake. Has no one read:

Brooks, Frederick P., Jr., 1931-2022. The Mythical Man-Month : Essays on Software Engineering. Reading, Mass. :Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1982.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it?

[queenkjuul]

I'm on round 3 of arguing with my boss's LLM about a terrible PR he refuses to review manually. I can tell from the PR that it was 100% generated by Claude code because I've seen identical suggestions in PRs from juniors. But this man is my boss. He won't listen.

Honest to god, were the programming job market like 5% better than it is (so, y'know, years away) i would already have quit. I've been applying places but it's a slaughterhouse out there. I got ghosted after a fourth round interview at a non-tech company over the winter.

Shit sucks.

I'm immensely jealous of the author; i have savings as a safety net, but not enough to take a year off work. But this next year of my role is guaranteed to be hell and the last year of applying for jobs has not been better.

[nunez]

it's an extension of the principle that the purpose of writing code is to write it for your successor.

[teeray]

I'm beginning to think that the only reason code reviews still exist is that "all changes are reviewed before going into production" is probably a checkbox on some security certification checklist.

[beef234]

It’s for accountability. They still need a human to blame when it falls. Meanwhile, the message from management is with AI we expect you to 2x-3x speed of delivery now.

[ngcazz]

Devs cannot reasonably be expected to have ownership over code that is generated overwhelmingly faster than it can be reviewed.