For people who like to tick boxes, which is essentially most of the above, AI is welcome. That includes managers.

It still has nothing to do with software engineering. All good code was written by humans. AI took it, plagiarizes it, launders it and repackages it in a bloated form.

Whenever I look deeply at an AI plagiarized mess, it looks like it is 90% there but in reality it is only 50%. Fixing the mess takes longer than writing it oneself.

▲

peab an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How can you say it has "nothing to do with software engineering" with a straight face?

I think you might be in serious denial.

Of course writing code isn't the only task of a software engineer, but it's an important one.

There wouldn't be so much controversy if it wasn't the case

▲

zozbot234 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

"Writing code" as a task of its own is called cowboy coding. It's neat that AI can do this now, but that has nothing to do with proper software engineering which always starts from a careful, human-led design.

	▲	peab 27 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"has nothing to do with proper software engineering" So you're saying software engineers don't write code? Just because there are other things that SWEs do, does not mean it has nothing to do with it. It's arguably a pretty important part. Would you really hire a software engineer who can't code?
	▲	jf22 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What's a good example of human-led design?

▲

zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The hard part of software engineering is turning a vague problem description into a set of box-ticking exercises. If ticking boxes became genuinely easier, the software engineering part is now a lot more valuable.

▲

readitalready 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No fixing the mess definitely does not take longer than writing it oneself.

Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural and stylistic choices - and the AI agents will immediately repair them.

It's about 1000x faster than a human code at repairing its own mess.

▲

applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Your linter should identify all issues - including architectural

If a linter could deterministically identify bad architecture, you wouldn't need an LLM, your linters could just write your code for you. The vibe coding takes are just getting more and more empty-headed...

▲

hansmayer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> If a linter could deterministically identify bad architecture, you wouldn't need an LLM,

a) that's not what a linter is built for, its a tool with very specific role

b) You must've never seen LLM expose secrets in plain text or use the most convoluted scenarios you can think of.

	▲	wilkystyle an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you missed the point of the person you are replying to.