> The problem solving is in figuring out what to prompt, which includes correctly defining the problem, identifying a potential solution, designing an architecture, decomposing it into smaller tasks, and so on

Coding is just a formal specification, one that is suited to be automatically executed by a dumb machine. The nice trick is that the basic semantics units from a programming language are versatile enough to give you very powerful abstractions that can fit nicely with the solution your are designing.

> Personally, once the shape of the solution and the code is crystallized in my head typing it out is a chore

I truly believe that everyone that says that typing is a chore once they've got the shape of a solution get frustrated by the amount of bad assumptions they've made. That ranges from not having a good design in place to not learning the tools they're using and fighting it during the implementation (Like using React in an imperative manner). You may have something as extensive as a network protocol RFC, and still got hit by conflict between the specs and what works.

▲

RHSeeger 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I truly believe that everyone that says that typing is a chore once they've got the shape of a solution get frustrated by the amount of bad assumptions they've made.

To a lot of people (clearly not yourself included), the most interesting part of software development is the problem solving part; the puzzle. Once you know _how_ to solve the puzzle, it's not all that interesting actually doing it.

That being said, you may be using the word "shape" in a much more vague sense than I am. When I know the shape of the solution, I know pretty much everything it takes to actually implement it. That also means I've very bad at generating LOEs because I need to dig into the code and try things out, to know what works... before I can be sure I have a viable solution plan.

▲

skydhash 3 days ago | parent [-]

I understand your point. But what you should be saying is that you have an idea of the correct solution. But the only correct solution is code or a formal proof that it is in fact correct. It’s all wishes and dreams otherwise. If not, we wouldn’t have all of those buffer overflow, one by off errors, and xss vulnerabilities.

	▲	RHSeeger 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		All we _ever_ have is an idea of the correct solution. There's no point at which we can ever say "this is the correct solution", at least not for any moderately sized software problem. That being said, we can say - Given the implementation options we've found, this solution/direction is what we think is the best - We have enough information now that it is unlikely anything we find out is going to change the solution - We know enough about the solution that it is extremely unlikely that there are any more real "problems/puzzles" to be solved At that point, we can consider the solution "found" and actually implementing it is no more a part of solving it. Could the implemented solution wind up having to deal with an off-by-one error that we need to fix? Sure... but that's not "puzzle solving". And, for a lot of people, it's just not the interesting part.

▲

keeda 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you would be surprised by how much these AIs can "fill in the blanks" based on the surrounding code and high-level context! Here is an example I posted a few months ago (which is coincidentally, related to the reply I just gave the sibling comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44892576

Look at the length of my prompt and the length of the code. And that's not even including the tests I had it generate. It made all the right assumptions, including specifying tunable optional parameters set to reasonable defaults and (redacted) integrating with some proprietary functions at the right places. It's like it read my mind!

Would you really think writing all that code by hand would have been comparable to writing the prompt?

▲

skydhash 3 days ago | parent [-]

I’m not surprised. It would be like being suprised by the favt that computers can generate a human portrait (which has been been a thing before LLMs), but people are still using 3d software because while it takes more time, they have more control over the final result.

	▲	keeda 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		We still have complete control over the code, because after the AI generates it, it's right there to tweak as we want! But the point is, there were no assumptions or tooling or bad designs that had to be fought. Just an informal, high-level prompt that generated the exact code I wanted in a fraction of the time. At least to me that was pretty surprising -- even if it'd become routine for a while by then -- because I'd expect that level of wavelength-match between colleagues who had been working on the same team for a while.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Coding is just a formal specification

If you really believe this, I'd never want to hire you. I mean, it's not wrong, it's just ... well, it's not even wrong.

▲

snovv_crash 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'd still hire them, in fact I see that level of understanding as a green flag.

Your response and depth of reasoning about why you wouldn't hire them is a red flag though. Not for a manager role and certainly not as an IC.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I provided zero depth of reasoning. Coding is as much a method of investigating and learning about a problem as it is any sort of specification. It is as much play as it is description. Somebody who views code as nothing more than a formal specification that tells a computer what to do is inhibiting their ability to play imaginatively with the problem space, and in the work that I do, that is absolutely critical.