For what it's worth we still use Android Studio as well internally, it is better and faster for doing specific UI stuff because of the tooling and visualization.
On the flip side the Google monorepo is a pretty cool thing and you get used to switching between projects and languages within the same commit chain pretty often. This is part of the reason the cloud IDE is so popular because it's one common editor across many languages compared to language specialized IDEs like Android Studio.
Regarding networking, it's not a big issue day to day. The infra team does a really great job building tools that do efficient caching and integrate well over the network.
In general I don't disagree that it is a multiplier in the hands of good engineers but it also seems to be a multiplier in the hands of bad engineers (multiples of bad). The question is in larger organizations is having 5x the good commits and 5x the bad commits stable? The answer seems TBD from my perspective.
This seems like a big HN / VC bubble thing thinking that average people are interested in software at all... they really aren't.
People want to open Netflix / YT / TikTok, open instagram, scroll reddit, take pictures, order stuff online, etc. Then professionals in fields want to read / write emails, open drawings, CADs, do tax returns, etc.
If anything overall interest in software seems to be going down for the average person compared to 2010s. I feel like most of the above normal people are going to stop using in favor of LLMs. LLMs certainly do compete with Googling for regular people though and writing emails.
My manager at work still does this in work chats and it drives me a bit crazy. If I want to k own what an LLMs take on the subject is I can just go ask it.
I can say at Google we usually just had engineering tip posters in the washrooms they were usually very insightful and just written by other engineers at the company.
Stuff like how to reduce nesting logic, how to restructure APIs for better testing, etc.
People usually like them. I can't say I've seen what the parent post described so I imagine it's "the other" FAANG mentioned here.
Yeah honestly I've been racking my brain about the same question (where can I move on to).
HN has been my home for learning about all sorts of things for 10+ years but blockchain + AI has just killed all interesting discussion that can be had.
It's hard to define a community around "not being obsessed" with something. Maybe instead it's worth thinking about what the goal of such a community / forum is. Might be easier to find / define.
If you come up with something I'm happy to check it out.
In my experience the lack of joy or difficulty with tests is almost always that the test environment is usually different enough from the real environment that you end up needing to kind of stretch your code to fit into the test env instead of actually testing what you are interested in.
This doesn't apply to very simple functions but tests on simple functions are the least interesting/ valuable.
Ironically I feel like our QA team is busier than ever since most e2e user-ish tests require coordinating tools that is just beyond current LLM capabilities. We are pumping out features faster that require more QA to verify.
I wonder if that's only really true for "pre-LLM" engineers though. If all you know is prompting maybe there's not a higher quality with more focused that can really be achieved.
It might just all meld into a mediocre soup of features.
To be clear not against AI assisted coding, think it can work pretty great but thinking about the implications for future engineers.
This analogy has always been bad any time someone has used it. Compilers directly transform via known algorithms.
Vibecoding is literally just random probabilistic mapping between unknown inputs and outputs on an unknown domain.
Feels like saying because I don't know how my engine works that my car could've just been vibe-engineered. People have put 1000s of hours into making certain tools work up to a give standard and spec reviewed by many many people.
"I don't know how something works" != "This wasn't thoughtfully designed"
To be fair there seems to be a weird dissonance between the marketing (fire your workers because AI can do everything now) and the reality (actually you need to spend time and effort and expertise to setup a good environment for AI tools and monitor them).
So when people just Yolo the ladder they don't get the results they expect.
I'm personally in the middle, chat interface + scripts seems to be the best for my productivity. Agentic stuff feels like a rabbit hole to me.
I would think this is reasonable. My general understanding at Amazon is that things are expected to work via API boundaries (not quite the case at Google).
If agentic coding worked as well as people claimed on large codebases I would be seeing a massive shift at my Job... Im really not seeing it.
We have access to pretty much all the latest and greatest internally at no cost and it still seems the majority of code is still written and reviewed by people.
AI assisted coding has been a huge help to everyone but straight up agentic coding seems like it does not scale to these very large codebases. You need to keep it on the rails ALL THE TIME.
For what it's worth we still use Android Studio as well internally, it is better and faster for doing specific UI stuff because of the tooling and visualization.
On the flip side the Google monorepo is a pretty cool thing and you get used to switching between projects and languages within the same commit chain pretty often. This is part of the reason the cloud IDE is so popular because it's one common editor across many languages compared to language specialized IDEs like Android Studio.
Regarding networking, it's not a big issue day to day. The infra team does a really great job building tools that do efficient caching and integrate well over the network.