I think there were always two camps when it came to writing code, a strong bimodal distribution. People that care about the perceived code quality (aka the ‘craft’) and people who treat the code as a means to an end. At least I always felt this tension. And there is always an exception, and a person can shift between two camps during the same day. But would generally lean towards one. I know I do. And one is not better than the other, they could both be very smart and well meaning. And you need both for success in a for-profit business. It’s been discussed ad nauseam but one particular metaphor I like is Jesus Christ vs James Bond. James Bond would win most of the time. Most people tend to think like James Bond, and if they don’t, the organization strongly nudges them in this direction, promotions get decided and it becomes self reinforcing.

Now a new powerful tool shows up and I think it is time for the Jesus Christ camp to throw in the towel.

▲

taurath 2 days ago | parent [-]

Depends what you’re doing. Constraints are different between projects, and advice given for how to utilize AI rarely takes that into account.

Don’t sling when you need to craft, and don’t craft when you need to sling. Knowing the difference matters more, and you can spend your entire career on one side or another.

	▲	3pm 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Craft was premised on the idea that a good writing and composition matters because it would be easier to read and comprehend (sometimes accepted by orgs because it was sold as cheaper). Now AI can read the code so the craft-leaning people would need to somehow sell it as 'fewer tokens will be spent on a well factored code' or 'well factored code reduces AI hallucinations'? Now a Slinger (using your terminology) can just ask AI to make the code look 'craftier' - and that is the best case scenario. In other words, they will not buy what we sell and if they will they can now produce the results for cheaper. Overlooking the devil in the details, as usual.