[munksbeer]

Crazy that this hasn't got more traction here. Maybe people missed this thread.

Agentic cli based coding "got good" (around Oct/Nov 2025), and after just a short trial period, most devs in our company were convinced enough to start using it. The graph from "not using it much" to "95% of code written by AI" was incredibly steep. It was obvious from around that point, but particularly from around Opus 4.6 that this was actually, very, very good, provided you understand the failure cases and worked to eliminate them.

Ever since then the story has been about the % of developers denying it can write anything decent dwindling, and right now there are very few left who say this. Places like reddit and HN seem to attract a lot of them though, so weirdly, despite in the real world most professional software developers using these tools prolifically, it can seem as though it is 50/50 here.

When even someone like Linus Torvalds (the most crotchety of crotchetiers) is accepting it, you must know you're on the wrong side by denying it at this point. Surely the cognitive dissonance must be grating?

[Krei-se]

No one has to agree with this just because torvalds said it.

You can also read up here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/20260715125058.3692aa03@... that this thread is about code analysis not generating it and the signal/noise ratio. It's not like his opinion is shared by everyone because these people actually have to look at the PRs generated and filter out all the noise.

The issue is not AI finding bugs is bad, it's that usually a maintainer gets offloaded 1000s of automatically generated PRs where 99,9% are BS and is then expected to read and check and understand all of them, immediately merging the 0,1 actually pointing out a real security issue.

You working in some "we replaced MS Access with another high-level language tool"-place is so far off this level of engineering i'm not surprised you only took the information "AI good" from this then told everyone else about how wrong they are to not use it.

[munksbeer]

>You working in some "we replaced MS Access with another high-level language tool"-place is so far off this level of engineering

You might have a point buried in your post somewhere, but I can't find it because your personal attack obscures it.

[Krei-se]

Yeah you're not wrong, that wasn't really necessary and is no way to treat people that may make good engineers.

See if you use your time to write specifications so AI will stay on guardrails - why not just go all the way to memory layout and functional programming? It's great to know what actually happens on the machine.

With natural language or the 4323th framework that makes things "easier" you just end up yourself not actually knowing what your intent is your machine should fulfill. Shouting at some AI the stuff your boss shouts at you? Not exact logic and what people intend today may contradict what they wanted yesterday.

Having domain knowledge and knowing how to translate peoples immediate wishes, predicting what they will want after that into building solid software is a skill you can grow into, but switching the toolset all the time that hides the magic keeps you from learning what was true in the 70s and is true today.