| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago |
| We don't need to learn CSS anymore. Just like we don't need to learn ASM since GCC does a great job generating it from higher-level code. |
|
| ▲ | limitedmage 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I am a frontend engineer and I see so many bugs from vibe-coded CSS from people who think just like you. CSS is very powerful and easy to get wrong if you don't understand it. Since most CSS code on the internet is not good, LLMs do not generate good CSS code and create a lot of bugs ranging from bad performance to completely broken reflow. |
| |
| ▲ | ericd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Funnily enough, I seem to remember some people saying that compiler generated assembly wasn’t as good as handmade assembly. | | |
| ▲ | jazzyb 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | For early compilers in certain contexts, this was once true. |
| |
| ▲ | willsmith72 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | the question is, what's the business cost of some amount of css bugs vs paying specialists or people to learn these details. the generalists win overall, except of course for specific cases where specialists are great |
|
|
| ▲ | cure_42 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Define "we". The people who make the tools that generate your assembly instructions need to learn it. Just like the people who make the browser rendering engine and push CSS forward still need to learn it. The people who don't need to learn asm never needed to learn it. If you wouldn't code in asm now, you wouldn't have ever. This " logic" is so irrational. |
|
| ▲ | _carbyau_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I just want to point out the exception - the person who the AI learns from. Someone has to know it. And to advance it to the next level requires domain level expertise. Or are we allowing LLM's to determine the next CSS snapshot/version/level/whatever? |
| |
|
| ▲ | GPerson 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Learning ASM will actually teach you a lot about how the computer works, and I doubt learning CSS deeply teaches you much about design fundamentals. |
|
| ▲ | kibwen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I want to believe this is sarcasm, but it's so hard to tell these days. |
| |
| ▲ | nonethewiser 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For many cases like the one described, its true. | | |
| ▲ | kibwen an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not. The majority of people regularly using GCC to develop C code (IOW, the primary use case of GCC) are familiar with assembly. | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How familiar? Do they ever look at the .S files? know what ar and nm do? Deal with objdump? How important are those details for day-to-day compiling of C code for regular programmers? | | |
| ▲ | kibwen 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they know what ar and nm do. Whether these things are relevant for day-to-day compiling of C code is watching the goalposts sail over the horizon; the original statement being mocked here is "we don't need to learn ASM because GCC is so good", which completely betrays ignorance of why people learn still learn and deal with ASM to this day. Even if LLMs were comparable to compilers either in predictability (they're not) or code quality (they're not), the people who know what they're doing still take pains to understand how their tech stacks work, because that makes them better programmers, and this will continue to be true. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not sarcasm. We've all accepted that code-generation has been required and accepted for decades. | | |
| ▲ | __d 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Code generation (by compiler) has one major difference: it's deterministic. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Honestly, we don't really need to learn any more. These days, I mostly copy and paste from tickets to the LLM, and then rubber stamp the output. I have people in my team that try to care about what they're making, but they're generating less code, and filling tickets more slowly, than I am. Even when it comes to system design and architecture, the LLMs aren't great at it, but honestly, they're better than my coworkers (I'd say system architecture is probably at the same readiness level that coding was last year). Expertise wouldn't really help you get things done faster. You could probably replace me with a minimum wage worker to do some manual testing and copy-paste errors from the console into the LLM, and still be fine. Let's see how long it is before the next round of layoffs, I guess. For now, the money's fine and the work's boring but ok. But, no, the LLMs rewarding expertise line is pure cope. Software is not really skilled labor any more. (obviously, throwaway -- I'm not interested in potentially advertising this to my employer) |
| |
| ▲ | JSR_FDED 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Honestly, we don't really need to learn any more. Perhaps for your task of closing Jira tickets that’s true - but the you have a decision to make: wait until you’re eliminated or try to anticipate where future competitiveness comes from. | | |
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, that's the thing; future competitiveness isn't going to come from learning, at least not from learning about software. The LLMs have that covered, and software is becoming low status work anyways. It's largely going to come from interpersonal skills and being likeable enough to be the face of the projects and companies. Technical skill is rapidly dropping in value. | | |
| ▲ | miyoji 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This claim can only be true if LLMs have completely mastered all intellectual aspects of creating and shipping software. That's so far from being true it's like saying that humans are currently an interplanetary, post-scarcity species. | | |
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | All? obviously not, but enough that I can ship more than my colleagues while not really paying attention to the output or fully understanding it. Technical skills aren't unnecessary, they're just becoming something that nobody will pay for. LLMs debug extremely well, generate code well enough, and do high level design acceptably, but fail in weird ways, so my actual work these days (outside of delegating to the LLM) is mostly manual testing. I need to give them nudges sometimes, but a year ago they needed constant nudges. In another year, I expect that it'll be good enough that pasting in a bug report with the right jargon will be all the nudging I need to get something that customers will accept if it gets shipped. They're already close. It's obviously going to remain pretty manual without some breakthroughs, but it's largely not work that needs a ton of intelligence or skill. The world hasn't caught up with software development being a few steps up from burger flipping, so I'm still getting paid well to do it, and I'll keep collecting that paycheck as long as it lasts. But learning about code is rapidly becoming relatively valueless. I wish it was different, I actually enjoyed getting paid to learn, but I play with the cards I'm dealt. |
|
|
|
|
