> The issue comes when you have 432 functionalities and have to add the 433 without interfering with the others. Or when you cant afford slightly wrong. Or when each functionality adds complexity at a higher rate than an engineer and over time the projects gets to an unmanageable size.
But that's not a problem on small projects. non-technical people only create software to scratch their needs, they will probably will need 20 or 30 features, never 432, making their system much easier to handle.
The problem with enterprise software is that it has to support a very large combination of features designed for different clients. That's why it gets so complex, but if the software has to support a single client is waaay easier.
I agree with you, 99% of the people work just to pay bills, but that doesn't make the other part false.
I'm a software engineer and love thinking about problems methodically. Every time I hear a someone saying that programmers are no longer required (even if I don't agree with that) if feels really bad, it's equivalent to saying that what I do best in life has no value anymore.
To put it on other words: I really like philosophy, but what value do they provide in modern world? Who pays for the work of a philosopher? I think people will start of thinking of programmers like that eventually.
If the LLM is wrong and gives you a wrong medical diagnosis you end up hurting your health. If an LLM gives you a wrong debugging answer you've just lost 5 minutes.
Software engineering is the only knowledge work where mistakes are usually inexpensive except for data breaches. Outside for that nobody cares for bugs.
That's not true in most other knowledge jobs. If a lawyer uses AI and hallucinates something there is a legal problem. If someone vibecodes an app and crashes, it can be fixed with more AI and try again
I've working on a small side project with a non technical friend for a couple months. It's really small but we are selling it to some clients.
The other day my friend discovered lovable and vibe coded an entire app and he started feeling like I was scamming him. Why would I take weeks or months in building our app if he could do it on hours?
He might be stubborn but ended up blindly believing me, but I couldn't find a good way of explaining that a prototype wasn't a final product. It has lots of errors, doesn't consider edge cases and it's impossible to fix if something breaks. Of course what I said didn't mean much because he didn't understand what I was talking about.
How do you communicate this problem? That there's much more than what you see in a frontend? Seems really hard to explain to non technical people.
> They'd prefer to believe that there's something special about their craft that means something produced by AI isn't good enough.
I know I can code and get better results than most people can with an LLM but I've came to realize that it doesn't matter and people just want to see results (even if they are kind of wrong).
In other words, with the website example, I've realized that even if the agency can do something 10x better, most people will choose to "buy" the AI website just because it's free or super cheap, and that makes me sad
I know you are joking but I'm sure that there is at least one director or VP inside GitHub pushing a new salvation project that must use AI to solve all the problems, when actually the most likely reason is engineers are drawing in tech debt.
> And a thinkpad running Linux is just not doing it for me. I want my power efficient mac hardware.
Are you talking about the battery? I bought a T16 AMD a month ago with the 86Wh battery and it lasts between 8 and 12 hour depending on the usage. Not as much as a macbook but enough to not worry too much about it. New intel ones are supposed to be much better on power efficiency.
It's off course one level bellow on the mac on that regard (and others maybe too), but if you want to use linux I think the trade-off is worth it.
The two groups are very different but I notice another pattern: you have people who like coding and understanding details of what their are doing, are curious, what to learn about the why and think about edge cases; and there's another group of people who just want to code something, make a test pass, show a nice UI and that's it, but don't think much about edge cases or maintainability. The only thing they think is "delivering value" to customers.
Usually those two groups correlate very well with liking LLMs: some people will ask Claude to create a UI with React and see the mess it generated (even if it mostly works) and the edge cases it left out and comment in forums that LLMs don't work. The other group of people will see the UI working and call it a day without even noticing the subtleties.
Sadly the times where people joined software engineering for passion are way behind. People nowadays join just for the money or because it has lot of jobs available.
It is very easy to notice at work who actually likes building software and wants to make the best product and who is there for the money, wants to move on, hard code something and get away with the minimal amount of work, usually because they don't care much. That kind of people love vibe coding.
Actually my bank already requires me to use the phone app for any operation on the website. When I want to login from my laptop I need to use my phone with their app to approve the login, same for almost any operation.
Ah, and it can only be installed in one device at the same time :D Don't have your phone available? Bad luck for you
But that's not a problem on small projects. non-technical people only create software to scratch their needs, they will probably will need 20 or 30 features, never 432, making their system much easier to handle.
The problem with enterprise software is that it has to support a very large combination of features designed for different clients. That's why it gets so complex, but if the software has to support a single client is waaay easier.