|
|
|
|
|
|
by DanielHB
26 days ago
|
|
|
I don't think so, my experience is that most often falls into two scenarios: 1) The devs pushing for more complex solutions, covering obscure edge case scenarios, feature-creep, "future-architecturing" because they are more interesting to implement. Classic over-engineering problems. 2) The features the managers actually want are usually boring or annoying to implement and the devs just work around any big architectural problems caused by the feature delivery. 1 is 100% on the devs, 2 it varies wildly, the willingness to address architectural problems are often under pressure by time-delivery estimates from managers. But many devs (especially in companies with low morale) will often just work around issues because addressing the underlying problems can be very difficult and/or time consuming. Meaning either the dev wants to do the right thing but doesn't have the time, or the dev doesn't care enough and just pushes the tech debt down to the future (when hopefully they will be at another job). LLMs makes both problems significantly worse, although they are also often very helpful with the big restructurings mentioned in 2. The dev can still be lazy and the deadline can still be too tight even with that extra LLM help. |
|
|