[mindwok]

> The larger point is that while AI coding tools make it easy to pump out lots of code, it’s really (still) the quality of the code that matters

This conclusion is unsupported from the observations. The code makes lots of requests, has too much CSS, and 6 different logo formats. So what? Lots of real, production codebases have just as many warts.

Folks need to stop dealing in absolutes with AI coding. Code quality always mattered, and still does, in certain circumstances. In others, it's less important and speed of iteration has more value. That's still true even with AI code.

[dingaling]

> In others, it's less important and speed of iteration has more value.

Maybe in some sort of topsy-turvy techbro world.

I've never, in three decades of developing, had a user say "what I want are new features updated frequently and I'm happy to accept sluggish, buggy code".

What they do say is "I want more features, sooner, without bugs".

[mindwok]

I'd guess you're maybe working on more established codebases then? I see this regularly with my clients. I work in sprints and they pay for my time, so they will often deprioritise engineering/robustness work if it's taking up time that could be used some shiny new feature they want.

Also it's rarely "I want new features and I'm happy for them to be buggy or sluggish", it's more "We want to solve this problem and we're not exactly sure what the solution will look like, so lets try stuff and accept it's not going to be perfect"