I don't get the obsession with more code. Whatever happened to good development practices? Many of which, if followed allow LLMs to work more efficiently ironically enough. I would rather hear that you've fixed bugs that have stumped your dev team for years, and have had next to no outages, to me that's more valuable than just slopping features out the door.

While I agree with your sentiment, very strongly actually, there has always been a tension between what I'll call "engineering teams" and "product teams". The engineering teams want the long-term platform stability, performance, etc. The product teams want to push that new feature out, quick! The overall business needs both (types of thinking and doing) to survive, of course, but not all leadership sees the world through the lens engineering team lens. I'd argue most actually lean the other way, which is understandable though unfortunate. I'd also posit that since these product teams are often "closer to the business", those people typically win favor with the real decision makers.

These new tools only exacerbate this issue.

One thing I've spotted several times throughout this year: the larger volume of code leads to exactly the sort of problems it always has. It just happens real fast now, with fewer people. Problems that used to take years to erupt now manifest before an MVP ships, but people just sweep it all under the rug in the name of moving fast.

I've spent most of the past two weeks trying to get my AI to stop writing so goddamned much code. It's great that I can, say, completely switch between two databases, but I wish the AIs would develop a concept of energy spend or something and spend maybe a moment checking whether something is already implemented in the code base before blasting out 2000 new lines defining a new database access layer, and also rewriting random code it shouldn't be touching for some task hundreds of lines at a time just because it can. I don't care how easy it is to write some tests that sort of kind of cover it hopefully maybe... no new code is as tested as the stuff that has been doing it in the field for years already.

Just because it has the power doesn't mean it should be used.

I'm not asking for everything to be some sort of beautiful code whose concision would lead Knuth to tears. I'm just asking that you not slather dozens of existing functions with three new parameters and dozens of lines of code each that basically do nothing, to cover a use case that I accidentally vaguely alluded to, if you read my prompt a certain way, but isn't really what I was interested in.

Idk imo code is and has always been a liability. Like the toilet paper bear says "less is more"

We used to understand that code was harder to read than it is to write. It follows, directly, that better engineering discipline means shipping LESS code. Less to support, less to understand, means a product that is easier to maintain and extend.

Now, token calculators spew out code at a pace no human can match, which completely removes the barrier of effort - which was one of the largest natural counters to shipping massive amounts of slop.

I'll be impressed by a coding model when it writes less code than a human, and spends more time refactoring than it does just adding new layers. Until then, this vibecoding is just madness.

agree 100%

it really isn't a flex ppl think it is when they're burning tokens churning agents that are working for "hours" doing work

we don't need to read or write code anymore, but we do need to write (as humans) the instructions for agents.

having ADRs, product specs, acceptance criteria, etc. that are properly maintained leads to agents working for just a few minutes and pumping out reliable code.

the more vague the work for agents, the more randomness and inefficiency there will be. that leads to bugs, constantly re-writing code, etc.

imo ofc, i'm not yet running a billion dollar company so maybe i'm wrong.