Why LLMs Make Learning to Code More Important, Not Less(senthil.learntosolveit.com)
senthil.learntosolveit.com
Why LLMs Make Learning to Code More Important, Not Less
https://senthil.learntosolveit.com/posts/2026/05/10/why-llms-make-learning-to-code-more-important-not-less.html
3 コメント
I explore some thoughts on why LLMs make learning to code more important for a software developer.
Sorry to say that I don't understand where "important" came from. You gave examples on how LLMs can make learning to code more productive, but there's essentially nothing there about importance. The closest seems to be this:
> There is a perception that you can just prompt an LLM and ship an app. Yes, you can produce something. But what you have is an artifact, not software. The moment you need to tweak it, if you don't understand programming, you are stuck.
But it's unsubstantiated (I personally have seen coworkers with no proper coding skills iterate quite effectively), and even if there is a real limitation at the moment, you would need to do a lot more work to show that the issue is fundamental and won't be fully addressed by Claude 5 with the "I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to" skill.
At best, even if we were to accept that LLM-based AIs will never do good software engineering, then at most you get to "LLMs make learning to code as important" ; I don't see how you can get to "more important".
For what it's worth, I personally think you might be right in your claim, but you need to engage with the actual issue in order to argue against it.
> There is a perception that you can just prompt an LLM and ship an app. Yes, you can produce something. But what you have is an artifact, not software. The moment you need to tweak it, if you don't understand programming, you are stuck.
But it's unsubstantiated (I personally have seen coworkers with no proper coding skills iterate quite effectively), and even if there is a real limitation at the moment, you would need to do a lot more work to show that the issue is fundamental and won't be fully addressed by Claude 5 with the "I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to" skill.
At best, even if we were to accept that LLM-based AIs will never do good software engineering, then at most you get to "LLMs make learning to code as important" ; I don't see how you can get to "more important".
For what it's worth, I personally think you might be right in your claim, but you need to engage with the actual issue in order to argue against it.
> how LLMs can make learning to code more productive,
> "LLMs make learning to code as important" >> I don't see how you can get to "more important"
Oh, well, the semantics and I know it matters.
If you agree to the statement that "learning to code as important", then, it is pretty is a positive reinforcement to learn to code, rather than negative signal (don't learn as it a waste) or 0 signal (don't bother, it's a waste of time as you can prompt it away).
All I am saying is industry drumbeat is misleading us, and learning to code IS important, as much or more as we want to take our trajectory with us. Coding is not just typing code, which I have emphasized a lot in the post.
> "LLMs make learning to code as important" >> I don't see how you can get to "more important"
Oh, well, the semantics and I know it matters.
If you agree to the statement that "learning to code as important", then, it is pretty is a positive reinforcement to learn to code, rather than negative signal (don't learn as it a waste) or 0 signal (don't bother, it's a waste of time as you can prompt it away).
All I am saying is industry drumbeat is misleading us, and learning to code IS important, as much or more as we want to take our trajectory with us. Coding is not just typing code, which I have emphasized a lot in the post.