|
|
|
|
|
by KronisLV
13 days ago
|
|
> I understood the technology contributed negatively to my personal growth. If your goal is to become better at writing code, it almost certainly is a net negative. If you define growth as shipping stuff and getting things done that you previously wouldn’t have had the time for, then it might be a positive. Hell, it’s probably both at the same time and what each person cares more about is the deciding factor. |
|
Think of the recent bun rewrite from zig to rust, around 1M lines of code. If you would have a team do that migration they would very likely have to become close to Rust expert, and develop an intimate knowledge of the codebase, its tradeoffs, have ideas for future improvements, good understanding of the technical debt they accepted, reliability of tests, etc. That's A LOT of expertise you can then apply to other things in your professional life.
Instead they went the AI way. The got the artifact (the migration) in ~1 week. But that's pretty much it? What did they learn from that project, other than the fact the AI can do that work? My guess would be pretty much nothing. And pretty much any other software engineer could have done the same migration. There is zero personal growth here.