| > wouldn't you be compelled to accept that refactoring and cleaning things up is just as fast and effortless? No. not at all. Imagine that each unit of work (a new PR for a feature, a bugfix) builds something that is 99% close to optimal and you can only get to bring it to 100% if you spend time to really review and rewrite the "not good" part. Also, for the sake of argument, let's just say that the overall quality of the system is geometric mean of the quality score of each unit of work. The only way to get an "ideal" system is by ensuring that work done on it follows the "ideal" architecture - for whatever "ideal" means for the developers/maintainers. You are arguing that you are saving time because you only have to write the 1% that the AI got wrong, so you'd be getting a 100x speed up. My argument is that there is not so much time because if you want 100% quality, you will have to review 100% of the code. Understanding the produced code is the time-consuming part, not typing it out. So, the only way to have these time savings by working with coding agents is if you accept that the code generated is good enough to not have careful review. But if you do that, then each unit of work that you tell yourself "not ideal but good enough. Ship it and we refactor later" ends up bringing the overall system quality. If you have 10 of these "99% good enough" PRs, and your overall system score is already at 90%. With 50 of these, the score dives down to 60%. This is what OP and I are talking about "compounding" issues: unless we get to a point where generated code does not need review at all, your development speed will always be bottle-necked by the human in the loop. The only way to get speed benefits from the code generation is if we remove the human in the loop, but in doing so quality will drop faster than you can fix it. |