I wonder if your background just has you fooled. I worked on a data science team and code was always a commodity. Most data scientists know how to code in a fairly trivial way, just enough to get their models built and served. Even data engineers largely know how to just take that and deploy to Spark. They don't really do much software engineering beyond that.

I'm not being precious here or protective of my "art" or whatever. But I do find it sort of hilarious and obvious that someone on a data science team might not understand the aesthetic value of code, and I suspect anyone else who has worked on such a team/ with such a team can probably laugh about the same thing - we've uh... we've seen your code. We know you don't value aesthetic code lol. Single variable names, `df1`, `df2`, `df3`.

I'm not particularly uncomfortable at the moment because understanding computers, understanding how to solve problems, understanding how to map between problems and solutions, what will or won't meet a customer's expectations, etc, is still core to the job as it always has been. Code quality is still critical as well - anyone who's vibe-coded >15KLOC projects will know that models simply can not handle that scale unless you're diligent about how it shoul dbe structured.

My job has barely changed semantically, despite rapid adoption of AI.

▲

garciasn 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I understand that you’re trying to apply your experience to what we do as a team and that makes sense; but, we’re many many stddev beyond the 15K LOC target you identified and have no issues because we do indeed take care to ensure we’re building these things the right way.

▲

staticassertion 9 hours ago | parent [-]

So you understand and you agree and confirm my experience?

▲

garciasn 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I have worked at many places and have seen the work of DEs and DSs that is borderline psychotic; but it got the job done, sorta. I have suffered through QA of 10000 lines that I ended up rewriting in less than 100.

So, yes; I understand where you’re coming from. But; that’s not what we do.

▲

staticassertion 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but then you said that you do what I'm suggesting is still critical to do, which is maintain the codebase even if you heavily leverage models. " we do indeed take care to ensure we’re building these things the right way."

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

bdangubic 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> We know you don't value aesthetic code lol. Single variable names, `df1`, `df2`, `df3`.

https://degoes.net/articles/insufficiently-polymorphic

> My job has barely changed semantically, despite rapid adoption of AI.

it's coming... some places move slower than other but it's coming

	▲	staticassertion 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> https://degoes.net/articles/insufficiently-polymorphic lol this is not why people do "df1", "df2", etc, nor are those polymorphic names but okay. > it's coming... some places move slower than other but it's coming What is coming, exactly? Again, as said, I work at a company that has rapidly adopted AI, and I have been a long time user. My job was never about rapidly producing code so the ability to rapidly produce code is strictly just a boon.