I'm a big fan of this explanation/rant from Andrew Murphy.
-
@elizayer to be 100% completely super fair, we are seeing a massive increase in scams. So AI is good for something. Scams. It’s good for scams.
@spazcosoft @elizayer Wasn't this always? Newly hyped stuff is used for scam, or porn, or both.
-
-
-
@elizayer Exactly! I’ve been trying to explain to people, especially those pushing AI at work, that writing code is not the hard part of my job. Identifying the real-world problems and designing solutions that are as minimalist and simple as possible are the hard parts. The code is an implementation detail.
-
@macronencer @mroach @elizayer
When I was working, I would regularly solve a development issue while in the shower. I think it’s the brain being unstressed that does that. -
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@mastodon.social Claude Code found a 23-year-old Linux vulnerability, the kind a regular human security auditor would have taken weeks or months to find (or in this case, 23 years). https://mtlynch.io/claude-code-found-linux-vulnerability/
-
@macronencer @mroach @elizayer
When I was working, I would regularly solve a development issue while in the shower. I think it’s the brain being unstressed that does that.@robtherunt @macronencer @elizayer Same! I’ve half jokingly said my bathroom is the most productive room in my home office setup. Sitting on the toilet and lots of a-ha moments
-
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 @trendytoots I can very much relate to this
-
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 management blame productivity for strategy failure because their approach to strategy path-finding is flooding: say a bunch of random hunches overconfidently, make teams try different things out for a little while, see what sticks. They see making code faster not as a way to manufacture a good design more efficiently, but as a means to generate management fuck ups and backpedals at faster pace and greater scale.
-
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. -
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 word!
-
@elizayer@mastodon.social Claude Code found a 23-year-old Linux vulnerability, the kind a regular human security auditor would have taken weeks or months to find (or in this case, 23 years). https://mtlynch.io/claude-code-found-linux-vulnerability/
@ulveon so this case justifies bazillions of dollars to be invested in needless serverfarms? And if that vulnerability wasnt discovered for 23 years it was prolly so well hidden that it was not an issue at all. Think about it.
-
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 And very well said it is!
This is why #BusinessAnalysts exist, or SHOULD exist.
To talk to your users and THEN to tell your coders what to build AND WHY.
-
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 workaday devs are serfs. Software architects are more crucial than ever. Architects emerge from jr devs through apprenticeship. Go.
-
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 amen. This. So much this.
-
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.The problem AI is meant to solve is wages.
They don't care if quality sucks, if they can avoid paying wages.
-
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
WAS not the problem. 🫠 -
The good news is :
Open source maintainers see an increase in the quality of AI security tools, it will soon be in the hands of the bad actors.
Then it will be mandatory to do good software and ( i will make the leap of faith that ) you have to understand the business needs to create a simple software that handle the issues.
30 years ago I taught Structured Systems Analysis and Design classes and consulted on client projects using the CASE (computer aided software engineering AKA data and process modeling software) tool I resold.
The core purpose was to ensure a joint correct understanding with the business of the requirements new or purchased software (components) needed to meet and designing clean and supportable software to implement those requirements.
You won't be shocked to learn ...
@elizayer -
30 years ago I taught Structured Systems Analysis and Design classes and consulted on client projects using the CASE (computer aided software engineering AKA data and process modeling software) tool I resold.
The core purpose was to ensure a joint correct understanding with the business of the requirements new or purchased software (components) needed to meet and designing clean and supportable software to implement those requirements.
You won't be shocked to learn ...
@elizayerthat upper management never caught on to the superior effectiveness and efficiency of building the correct solution the first time despite not a line of code getting written for many months.
I did a BPR project ( I didn't know it was a BPR project as the book hadn't been written yet) to migrate a smallish non-profit from a cranky and poorly designed mainframe system to client server.
We spent 9 months modeling the requirements and ... -
that upper management never caught on to the superior effectiveness and efficiency of building the correct solution the first time despite not a line of code getting written for many months.
I did a BPR project ( I didn't know it was a BPR project as the book hadn't been written yet) to migrate a smallish non-profit from a cranky and poorly designed mainframe system to client server.
We spent 9 months modeling the requirements and ...system design.
It took us 2 months and change to code 90% of the requirements. Rolled it out and completely reorganized their workflow without a serious issue.
They ran on that Paradox for DOS system for many years and grew their business throughout without the need to expand their core staff while supplying greatly enhanced service to their customers.They're still out there - https://www.cgfns.org/
