I liked this article, and I see a lot of other commenters didn't, so I'll give my take:<p>When starting on a new codebase, how do you make yourself into a helpful contributor as quickly as possible? I go straight for the humans and their human docs. What problem was the system originally built to solve? What was the original design, and what were its biggest problems? Who is currently using it? If you know these, reading the code is much easier because you can guess why things were done the way they are.<p>Also, this blog post has gotten popular: <a href="https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/</a><p>I think Charity is observing a very old problem and expecting the new technology to lead to a new solution <i>of some kind</i>. I doubt she thinks even the current generation of tools are the end of the AI software development story. She's not saying we'll drop design docs right into Claude code and walk away (design docs aren't complete either, that's why when you're ramping up you also have to talk to people, read old tickets and postmortems, etc.)<p>What she's observing is that, in prod, people don't like infra where it's hard to tell how it got into is current state, and so infra-as-code is what we do now. She's also observing that, "it's hard to tell how it got into is current state" is the status quo with codebases, which other people have observed going back to "Programming as Theory Building" and earlier. And she's expecting that, analogous to infra, software development will somehow be done with tools focused on making "how the code got into its current state" clearer.
Great article. I'm not sure the author is correct - but I think something is happening to the adage:<p>> A sufficiently detailed specification is runnable code.<p>In a way I think LLMs will enable the dream of 4gl and "sufficiently smart compilers"[c].<p>LLMs aren't smart, but they are capable. Especially capable of translation and transformation.<p>I can certainly see them help move the abstraction horizon at which we work - so that rigid high level descriptions of the desired logic/process along with the process for quality testing - become the relevant curated artifacts - and the generated go/rust/java/python/etc code become incidental and mutable; subject to constant rewriting as part of the deployment of systems.<p>[c] You know, the ones that take naive C/C++ and produce executables that fully leverage RISC/EPIC platforms to be better than CISC. See also: Intel Itanium
This is what Anthropic did with agents and $20k to write a C compiler that survived gcc’s torture suite. But the LLM knew:<p>1. What a C compiler was<p>2. What a C compiler looked like<p>3. What the C compiler had to do at runtime to pass gcc’s torture suite through some sort of collaborative iteration (compile, run, did it get stuck at some torture suite test or fail?)<p>Remove 1 and 2, or replace it with imperfect business logic, and you’re left with a system that is built to _only_ pass the tests you supply it, or in the most extreme case, print(“unit and functional tests pass!”)
Before 2023 I remember everyone here on HN championed that removing lines of code was the strongest senior metric
arent they still? or at least a lot. its too much current to win the swim race against the deluge of llm LOC. but i also disagree with some of the things the author just casually lays out, which is whether the LLMs can write good code. they write working code, but it looks written by a demogorgon and i get a bit ill seeing it. its bad but not bad in a way that a human would ever write, like i dont get that kind of sick reading spaghetti code written by new devs. it's a kind of sick like cthulhus eggs are hatching somewhere in your guts.
Removing lines of code without removing functionality.
Simplification is still good. I remember one senior that only removed code when he joined my company until he became a manager!
I did not enjoy reading this article. The writing was fine, and each individual paragraph was fine, but the whole thing together was meandering and dare I say pointless. It was so many words and yet so little seems to have been said.
I'm not sure this article had enough thought put into it. For example:<p><pre><code> What happened in 2025 was this: the economics of code production were turned upside down. Instead of being very hard, time-consuming, and expensive to generate code, it became effectively free and instant. Lines of code went from being treasured, reused, cared for and carefully curated, to being disposable and regenerable, practically overnight.
</code></pre>
It's not so much as "the economics [...] were turned upside down", but that a manufacturing process that used to be strictly additive (akin to 3D printing) is now complemented by a subtractive process (akin to CNC milling). The "shape" that is demanded hasn't really changed, and nor has the human effort (as long as you care about achieving certain tolerances). You still have to "treasure, reuse, care for, and curate" your product to whatever degree the market demands.<p>Also I disagree with:<p><pre><code> Lines of code are not the ideal artifact to review
</code></pre>
What does "ideal" mean here? When I was growing up "show your work" was the rule for all examinations. Why? Because we're working to improve mental models and thought processes for the next generation, not just products we will release tomorrow.
I think the point is that there are better engineering artifacts to review instead of lines of code. Encoding the decisions, structure, requirements, testing, monitoring, then reviewing those and having AI generate and regenerate code based on them. The code itself doesn't matter if enough thought and rigor has gone into the structure that produces the code.<p>> What does "ideal" mean here? When I was growing up "show your work" was the rule for all examinations. Why? Because we're working to improve mental models and thought processes for the next generation, not just products we will release tomorrow.<p>They're saying that the mental models and thought processes are incredibly important but that code is not the place for that work to live.
I enjoyed it, people post on blogs as a way to entertain themselves, not necessarily the reader.
This has been my experience with AI.<p>Writing software begins with a solid design that is defensible. If you don't have that, the AI will produce slop.<p>Once you're happy with the design, you need a solid plan. If you don't have that, the AI will produce slop.<p>Once you're happy with the plan, you can set the AI loose, but don't get too complacent! Anything that you missed in the previous phases could very well lead to slop (although likely localized).<p>And then then, as your project matures and you gain more understanding of the space, you start to notice deficiencies in your model. This is where AI really shines: design and code changes to adapt to reality.
Broadly concur with this and in fact it’s all of this is going to make doing real engineering easier in my opinion<p>The author makes the wrong assumption though that the majority of people who are doing engineering want to do even more engineering.<p>It’s my experience that most technology workers just want a high paycheck and have some kind of association with being in tech and doing cool things
> Instead of being very hard, time-consuming, and expensive to generate code<p>Was this article written by AI? It's certainly stupid enough!
[flagged]