You do. Even the latest models still frequently write really weird code. The problem is some developers now just submit code for review that they didn't bother to read. You can tell. Code review is more important than ever imho.

▲

sausagefeet 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with you. But I have to say, it is an uphill battle and all the incentives are against you.

1. AI is meant to make us go faster, reviews are slow, the AI is smart, let it go.

2. There are plenty of AI maximizers who only think we should be writing design docs and letting the AI go to town on it.

Maybe, this might be a great time to start a company. Maximize the benefits of AI while you can without someone who has never written a line of code telling you that your job is going to disappear in 12 months.

All the incentives are against someone who wants to use AI in a reasonable way, right now.

▲

redhed 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually agree with good time to start a company. Lot of available software engineers that can actually understand code, AI at a level that can actually speed up development, and so many startups focusing on AI wrapper slop that you can actually make a useful product and separate yourself from the herd.

Or you can be a grifter and make some AI wrapper yourself and cash out with some VC investment. So good time for a new company either way.

	▲	johnmaguire 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's gonna be like that HBO Silicon Valley bit again, where everyone and their doctor is telling you about their app.

▲

bradleykingz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But it's so BORING. AI gets to do the fun part (writing code) and I'm stuck with the lame bits.

It's like watching someone else solve a puzzle, or watching someone else play a game vs playing it yourself (at least that's half as interesting as playing it through)

▲

HoldOnAMinute 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am really enjoying making requirements docs in an iterative process. I have a continuous improvement loop where I use the implementation to test out the docs. If I find a problem with the docs, I throw away the implementation, improve the docs, then re-implement. The kind of docs I'm getting are of amazing quality.

▲

nz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your workplace has chosen to deprive you of the enjoyment that you got from the work. You have a few options: (1) ask for a raise proportional to the percentage of enjoyment that you lost, (2) find a workplace that does not do this, or (3) phone it in (they see you and your craft as something be milked for cash, so maybe stop letting yourself get milked, and milk them right back, by doing _exactly_ what is asked of you and _not_ more -- let these strategic geniuses strategize using their own brains).

▲

lukan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For me the most fun part is getting something that works. Design the goal, but not micromanage and get lost in the details. I love AI for that, but it is hard really owning code this way. (At least I manually approve every or most changes, but still, verifying is hard).

	▲	bitwize 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		AI has really sharpened the line between the Master Builders of the world and the Lord Businesses along this question: What, exactly, is the "fun part" of programming? Is it simply having something that works? Or is it the process of going from not having it to having it through your own efforts and the sum total of decisions you made along the way?

▲

stretchwithme 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can solve a problem in 10% of the time. Dealing with an issue TODAY, instead of having to put it in the backlog.

▲

throwaw12 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You do

I really want to say: "You are absolutely right"

But here is a problem I am facing personally (numbers are hypothetical).

I get a review request 10-15/day by 4 teammates, who are generating code by prompting, and I am doing same, so you can guess we might have ~20 PRs/day to review. now each PR is roughly updating 5-6 files and 10-15 lines in each.

So you can estimate that, I am looking at around 50-60 files, but I can't keep the context of the whole file because change I am looking is somewhere in the middle, 3 lines here, 5 lines there and another 4 lines at the end.

How am I supposed to review all these?

▲

johnmaguire 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't quite follow - are you describing an issue with the way your team has structured PRs? IMO, a PR should contain just enough code to clearly and completely solve "a thing" without solving too much at once. But what this means in practice depends on the team, product, velocity, etc. It sounds like your PRs might be broken up into too small of chunks if you can't understand why the code is being added.

	▲	throwaw12 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I am saying PRs I get are around 60-70 lines of change, which is small enough to be considered as single unit (add to this unit tests which must pass with new change, so we are talking about 30 line change + 30 line unit test) But when looking at the PR changes, you don't always see whole picture because review subjects (code lines) are scattered across files and methods, and GitHub also shows methods and files partially making it even more difficult to quickly spot the context around those updated lines. Its difficult problem, because even if GitHub shows whole body of the updated method or a file, you still don't see grand picture. For example: A (calls) -> B -> C -> D And you made changes in D, how do you know the side effect on B, what if it broke A?

▲

MrDarcy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is remarkably effective to have Claude Code do the code review and assign a quality score, call it a grade, to the contribution derived from your own expectations of quality.

Then don’t even bother looking at C work or below.

	▲	NitpickLawyer 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		IME it works even better if you use another model for review. We've seen code by cc and review by gpt5.2/3 work very well. Also works with planning before any coding sessions. Gemini + Opus + GPT-xhigh works to get a lot of questions answered before coding starts.

▲

xienze 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The problem is some developers now just submit code for review that they didn't bother to read.

Can you blame them? All the AI companies are saying “this does a better job than you ever could”, every discussion topic on AI includes at least one (totally organic, I’m sure) comment along the lines of “I’ve been developing software for over twenty years and these tools are going to replace me in six months. I’m learning how to be a plumber before I’m permanently unemployed.” So when Claude spits out something that seems to work with a short smoke test, how can you blame developers for thinking “damn the hype is real. LGTM”?

▲

jf22 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm an 99% organic person (I suppose I have tooth fillings) and the new models write code better than I do.

I've been using LLMS for 14+ months now and they've exceeded my expectations.

▲

HoldOnAMinute 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not only do they exceed expectations, but any time they fall down, you can improve your instructions to them. It's easy to get into a virtuous cycle.

▲

xienze 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So are you learning a trade? Or do you somehow think you’ll be one of the developers “good enough” to remain employed?

	▲	jf22 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have a physical goods side hustle already and I'm brainstorming ideas about a trade I can do that will benefit from my programming experience. I'm thinking HVAC or painting lines in parking lots. HVAC because I can program smart systems and parking lot lines because I can use google maps and algos to propose more efficient parking lot designs to existing business owners. There is that paradox when if something becomes cheaper there is more demand so we'll see what happens. Finally, I'm a mediocre dev that can only handle 2-3 agents at a time so I probably won't be good enough.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Can you blame them?

Yes I absolutely can and do blame them