"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
-
"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
But "we ship 9 lines of fluff for each line of code that does something" doesn't sound as impressive.
-
"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
But "we ship 9 lines of fluff for each line of code that does something" doesn't sound as impressive.
@PavelASamsonov
In my experience, professional software engineers limited prayers to their comments rather than as executable code. -
"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
But "we ship 9 lines of fluff for each line of code that does something" doesn't sound as impressive.
@PavelASamsonov True! My partner is an IT professional and spends more time throwing away (other people's) code than writing new one. Having concise and clear code shows that you really know your trade, and it's ridiculous that even big tech companies are now doing so much AI-coding.
-
"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
But "we ship 9 lines of fluff for each line of code that does something" doesn't sound as impressive.
@PavelASamsonov If the vibecoded implementations were reliably correct - but they are not; while trying to understand better what I criticise, I am trying out GenAI in software engineering in isolated use cases and environments, but the failure modes range from hilarious to insidious.
Many still follow these output-related (quantity) metrics rather than outcome-related ones (quality).
-
"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
But "we ship 9 lines of fluff for each line of code that does something" doesn't sound as impressive.
@PavelASamsonov Reminds me how I suggested once to increase code coverage by adding thousands of lines of fully covered NOP code
-
M maiathecyberwitch@helvede.net shared this topic
-
"AI is writing 90% of our code" sounds impressive before you realize that AI-generated code is orders of magnitude more verbose & less efficient than code written by a professional software engineer.
But "we ship 9 lines of fluff for each line of code that does something" doesn't sound as impressive.
@PavelASamsonov Some people are still stuck on the old "lines of code per day" metric. Which has never been a decent metric anyway, but is less and less so. If, as a dev, I manage 10 lines of new code - written, tested, unit tested, designed, considered - in a day, that is pretty reasonable. Sometimes, my work is negative lines in a day.
What they mean is that 90% of their code is now unmaintainable.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
