I somewhat agree with this poster. However, I think the unfortunate reality of programming for money is that a mediocre programmer that pumps out millions of lines of slop that seems to drive the business forward and manages to hide disastrous bugs until after the contract / promotion cycle is over will get further ahead than the more competent programmer that delivers better, less buggy, less spaghetti code.

▲

ymyms 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, isn't driving the business forward really what matters (outside of academia, open source, and other such endeavors). We live in a hyper competitive market. All else being equal, if company A can produce "millions of lines of slop", constantly living on the knife-edge of disaster but not falling over it, they will beat company B that artificially slows themselves down. Up until the point company A implodes, but that's not necessarily a given if pre-LLM companies are any indication.

▲

j2kun 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds like you should go bundle sub-prime mortgages into some complex securities, if you like intentionally living on the knife's edge of disaster.

▲

ymyms 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Huh? Where did I say that's what I like? I'm just trying to discuss for discussion's sake. Personally, I want a world that rewards the people who put their thought, care, and craftsmanship into something more than those that don't. In order to live in that world, I think we need to discuss the parts (maybe the whole) that don't and why that might be.

	▲	hu3 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		don't bother. Your parent commenter is writing some loaded comments in this post.

▲

falloutx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is not reality for most companies. Some have billions in bank but still produce slop. Its because their internal systems rewards slop.