I'm a big fan of this explanation/rant from Andrew Murphy.
-
I'm a big fan of this explanation/rant from Andrew Murphy.
Taken as a whole, there are many bottlenecks in a corporate software development process. The "load-bearing" calendar is a great example!
Speeding up code creation just increases pressure on the bottleneck, which decreases throughput.
@elizayer it's such a stressful read, honestly, for somebody stuck in the middle of all this!
-
@elizayer @beep I was literally just talking to someone about #Waymo for this same reason. Tech has reached the point where it has become more than abundantly obvious to anyone who dares to ask a single question that the objective is no longer the improvement of anyone’s life but the #EpsteinClass’s. Why is taking a Waymo better than taking an Uber? Because now someone’s out of a job. Why is #AI better than a software developer? Because now someone’s out of a job
-
So why are we still trying to optimize code creation?
For decades, people with power - executives and product people - have been shifting the blame for strategy failures and poor market insight onto development "productivity."
This AI moment should be incredibly clarifying. Like, it should be the reductio ad absurdum of a productivity-centric approach.
@elizayer a feature-idea stress test app would be cool.
-
@elizayer a feature-idea stress test app would be cool.
@elizayer for new biz, Ash Maurya has an interesting tool.
https://leanspark.ai/ -
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer There's the expression of resonating strongly with something, in this case the rumble from the resonation is deafening. 🫨
We have a really small team at work, with widely varying levels of experience. In this team I've been the firehose that produces more code than anybody can review, if just left to my devices like in the olden days. These days, with the introduction of mandated reviews and sprints and whatnot, I spend maybe a week having fun coding and then couple of weeks spinning wheels and getting bored and frustrated while waiting for reviews. And now they're starting to *mandate* use of AI agents for work "to accelerate" *wild handwaving* everything. For deitys sake.
I suppose their vision of the workflow is for the humans to describe what they want, have AI generate the code and then the human can review it by themselves. It does change the review dynamics for sure, but it doesn't remove the bottleneck - it would still be review, just going even slower because the human is now required to understand the random slop generated by a thing that doesn't think in the process of creation. Vitally, it also eliminates the sanity check of another human being in the loop. We all sometimes get carried away and lose perspective, and it takes another person boggling at your creation from a distance, "what the heck are you trying to accomplish here?"
Finally, that workflow would also eliminate the single item I actually care about my work: lovingly crafting and carving code. I will not be sitting around reviewing AI slop for the rest of my career.
-
@elizayer for new biz, Ash Maurya has an interesting tool.
https://leanspark.ai/@billseitz I can see some benefit in founders spending less time wallowing in bad ideas... but won't be holding my breath for insightful new products to emerge from this.
-
@billseitz @elizayer @beep
I’m with @spinni81 here. The life-saving solution to car-related accidents is not automated cars, it’s extensive, more condensed public transportation. -
@billseitz @elizayer @beep
I’m with @spinni81 here. The life-saving solution to car-related accidents is not automated cars, it’s extensive, more condensed public transportation.@BmeBenji I'm certainly pro density > cars (and think we need a #CarbonTax), but but for any number of cars on the road, making them self-driving will save lives.
-
@janef0421 @ulveon @elizayer well, it only means that it was hard to find. It also means that all versions are vulnerable. And as it will be public it must absolutely be fixed.
-
@BmeBenji I'm certainly pro density > cars (and think we need a #CarbonTax), but but for any number of cars on the road, making them self-driving will save lives.
@billseitz
Maybe (and imho that's not a given), but to save lives you don't need to wait for AVs. There are already solutions for that. Look at Helsinki. Zero road deaths, but no AVs. Slowing down cars is probably the most effective tool but there's a lot more that can be done now.And don't forget, Waymo's goal is not to save lives but to make money. I wouldn't bet on them.
-
I'm a big fan of this explanation/rant from Andrew Murphy.
Taken as a whole, there are many bottlenecks in a corporate software development process. The "load-bearing" calendar is a great example!
Speeding up code creation just increases pressure on the bottleneck, which decreases throughput.
@elizayer this article hit a little too close to home. This basically describes my workday.
-
@ced @elizayer @hbons we are posting via a tool that was developed by an imperial government to ensure communications could survive after a nuclear war.
We are using a toxic form of communication (oh… yeah… mastodon is toxic light) that has destroyed the trust in institutions and is the proximate cause of the rise of authoritarian regimes
Yes, I use tools that have negative externalities.
I use these tools to explore and create.
You don’t like it, ignore me.
@dpp @ced @elizayer @hbons it somehow fits that someone likes bad quality of the source code doesn't care about the quality of his source. No, this was not developed for surviving after a nuclear war. This all started with Californian hippies at Californian Universities who wanted connect with each other. They were just clever enough to get money for it with using your argument.
So already your first claim is wrong...
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer yes, thank you for pointing that out and let me add: ...and never was.
When I studied Computer Science about 30 years ago, all the old professors already told us it's not about writing code. There will always be someone somewhere who does it faster and cheaper. This is nothing you need to study.
A good (...) and secure design is the thing to learn. The programming is not the point...To bad the marketing guys got in charge for leading the IT...
-
@dpp @ced @elizayer @hbons it somehow fits that someone likes bad quality of the source code doesn't care about the quality of his source. No, this was not developed for surviving after a nuclear war. This all started with Californian hippies at Californian Universities who wanted connect with each other. They were just clever enough to get money for it with using your argument.
So already your first claim is wrong...
-
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
