The developer UX are the markdown files if no developer ever looks at the code.
Whether you are tired of it or not, absolutely no one in your value you chain - your customers who give your company money or your management chain cares about your code beyond does it meet the functional and non functional requirements - they never did.
And of course whether it was done on time and on budget
As a consumer of goods, I care quite a bit about many of the “hows” of those goods just as much as the “whats”.
My home, which I own, for example, is very much a “what” that keeps me warm and dry. But the “how” of it was constructed is the difference between (1) me cursing the amateur and careless decision making of builders and (2) quietly sipping a cocktail on the beach, free of a care in the world.
“How” doesn’t matter until it matters, like when you put too much weight onto that piece of particle board IKEA furniture.
I know where they fucked up and cost me thousands of dollars due to cutting corners during build-out and poor architectural decisions during planning. These kinds of things become very obvious during destructive inspection, which is probably why there are so many limitations on warranties; I digress.
He’s mildly controversial, but watch some @cyfyhomeinspections on YouTube to get a good idea of what you can infer of the “how” of building homes and how it affects homeowners. Especially relevant here because he seems to specialize in inspecting homes that are part of large developments where a single company builds out many homes very quickly and cuts tons of corners and makes the same mistakes repeatedly, kind of like LLM-generated code.
So you’re saying that whether it’s humans or AI - when you delegate something to others you have no idea whether it’s producing quality without you checking yourself…
> you have no idea whether it’s producing quality without you checking yourself
No, I can have some idea. For example, “brand perception”, which can be negatively impacted pretty heavily if things go south too often. See: GitHub, most recently.
I mean, there are already companies that have a negative reputation regarding software quality due to significant outsourcing (consultancies), or bloated management (IBM), or whatever tf Oracle does. We don’t have to pretend there’s a universe where software quality matters, we already live in one. AI will just be one more way to tank your company’s reputation with regards to quality, even if you can maintain profitability otherwise through business development schemes.
> So as long as it is meeting the requirements of “it stays up consistently and doesn’t lose my code” you really don’t care how it was coded…
I don’t think we’ll come to common ground on this topic due to mismatching definitions of fundamental concepts of software engineering. Maybe let’s meet again in a year or two and reflect upon our disagreement.
If you maintain software used by tens of thousands to millions of people, you will quickly realize that no specified functional and non-functional requirements cover anywhere near all user workflows or observable behaviors.
If you mostly parachute in solutions as a consultant, or hand down architecture from above, you won’t have much experience with that, so it’s reasonable for you to underestimate it.
AWS S3 by itself is made up of 300 microservices. Absolutely no developer at AWS knows how every line of code was written.
The scalability requirements are part of the “non functional requirements”. I know that the vibe coded internal admin website will never be used by more than a dozen people just like I know the ETL implementation can scale to the required number of transactions because I actually tested it for that scalability.
In fact, the one I gave to the client was my second attempt because my first one fell flat on its face when I ran it at the required scale
I'm not talking about scalability requirements. I'm talking about the different workflows that 10 million people will come up with when they use a program that won't exist in any requirements docs.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. If you go tell your agents to add this new feature to an app, and you do it by writing up a new requirements doc. If you don't review the code, they will change a million different "implementation details" in order to add the new feature that will break workflows that aren't specified anywhere.
The code is the spec. No natural language specification will ever full cover every behavior you care about in practice. No test suite will either.
If you don't know this, you haven't maintained non-trivial software.
And have you never seen what a overzealous developer can do and wreck havoc on an existing code base without a testing harness? Let a developer lose with something like Resharper which has existed since at least the mid 2000’s
If your test don’t cover your use cases, you are just as much in danger from a new developer. It’s an issue with your testing methodology in either case.
And there is also plan mode that you should be reviewing
Of course they can. Those kinds of developers cause problems constantly. It's one of the biggest reasons we have code reviews. Automated tests help too.
But even with all of that we still have bugs and broken workflows. Now take that human and remove most of their ability to reason about how code changes affect non-local functionality and make them type 1000x faster. And don't have anyone review their code.
The code is the spec, someone needs to be reviewing it.
Whether you are tired of it or not, absolutely no one in your value you chain - your customers who give your company money or your management chain cares about your code beyond does it meet the functional and non functional requirements - they never did.
And of course whether it was done on time and on budget