153
Using AI generated code will make you a bad programmer.
(slopwatch.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
153 points (86.3% liked)
Technology
58815 readers
4642 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don’t love AI, but programming is engineering. The goal is to solve a problem, not to be the best at solving a problem.
Also I can write shitty code without help anyway
The issue with engineering is that if you don't solve it efficiently and correctly enough, it'll blow up later.
Sounds like a problem for later
Flippancy aside: the fundamental rule in all engineering is solving the problem you have, not the problem you might have later
Is this literally what they teach in school now? I’m asking this honestly. It would explain quite a lot about why we have such a hard time finding programmers and engineers under 50 who are able to think through simple interview questions about designing basic solutions.
The past 2 programmers hired at my job lasted about 2 years each, and it was clear that they both would immediately move forward with the first “solution” that popped into their head for any problem. They’d “fix” a problem in minimal time, but this would cause TONS of wasted labor, troubleshooting, and travel downstream. They didn’t bother to think beyond the immediate “fix” for this problem with no regard for that problem it would cause for 2 other teams.
We have a few other old school programmers that went through computer engineering and science degrees when it was more akin to philosophy. They are fantastic and I love working with them.
That doesn't apply to all engineering. In ChE, it'll literally blow up later...
“Not blowing up later” would be part of the problem being solved
Engineering for future requirements almost always turn out to be a net loss. You don’t build a distillation column to process 8000T of benzene if you only need to process 40T
It's rarely the case. You rarely work in vacuum where your work only affects what you do at the moment. There is always a downstream or upstream dependency/requirement that needs to be met that you have to take into account in your development.
You have to avoid the problem that might come later that you are aware of. If it's not possible, you have to mitigate the impact of the future problems.
It's not possible to know of all the problems that might/will happen, but with a little work before a project, a lot of issues can be avoided/mitigated.
I wouldn't want civil engineers thinking like that, because our infrastructure would be a lot worse than it is today.