←back to thread

416 points floverfelt | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
jeppester ◴[] No.45057505[source]
In my company I feel that we getting totally overrun with code that's 90% good, 10% broken and almost exactly what was needed.

We are producing more code, but quality is definitely taking a hit now that no-one is able to keep up.

So instead of slowly inching towards the result we are getting 90% there in no time, and then spending lots and lots of time on getting to know the code and fixing and fine-tuning everything.

Maybe we ARE faster than before, but it wouldn't surprise me if the two approaches are closer than what one might think.

What bothers me the most is that I much prefer to build stuff rather than fixing code I'm not intimately familiar with.

replies(8): >>45057537 #>>45058508 #>>45061118 #>>45061272 #>>45061732 #>>45062347 #>>45065856 #>>45070745 #
epolanski ◴[] No.45057537[source]
As Fowler himself states, there's a need to learn to use these tools properly.

In any case poor work quality is a failure of tech leadership and culture, it's not AI's fault.

replies(1): >>45058751 #
FromTheFirstIn ◴[] No.45058751[source]
It’s funny how nothing seems to be AI’s fault.
replies(5): >>45060536 #>>45060602 #>>45060685 #>>45061146 #>>45062496 #
1. colordrops ◴[] No.45060685[source]
How could a tool be at fault? If an airplane crashes is the plane at fault or the designers, engineers, and/or pilot?
replies(1): >>45061424 #
2. wk_end ◴[] No.45061424[source]
Designers, engineers, and/or pilots aren't tools, so that's a strange rhetorical question.

At any rate, it depends on the crash. The NTSB will investigate and release findings that very well may assign fault to the design of the plane and/or pilot or even tools the pilot was using, and will make recommendations about how to avoid a similar crash in the future, which could include discontinuing the use of certain tools.