> I fail to see why anyone would want this to be the future of code.
IME there's an inverse relationship between how excited the person is about AI coding and their seniority as an engineer.
Juniors (and non-coders) love it because now they can suddenly do things they didn't know how to do before.
Seniors don't love it because it gets in their way, causes coworkers to put up low-quality AI-generated code for peer review, and struggles with any level of complexity or nuance.
My fear is that AI code assistants will inadvertently stop people from progressing from Junior --> Senior since it's easier to put out work without really understanding what you're doing. Although I guess I could have said the same thing about Stack Overflow 10 years ago.
It's a very different thing from SO, in my opinion, because SO involves human discussion. One of the most valuable, educational things about using SO is the comments underneath some answers saying that it's a bad idea, and explaining why. This critical reflection is completely missing from LLM coding. Good suggestion, horrible suggestion – there's no distinction that would be noticed by someone not already experienced in the topic.
IME there's an inverse relationship between how excited the person is about AI coding and their seniority as an engineer.
Juniors (and non-coders) love it because now they can suddenly do things they didn't know how to do before.
Seniors don't love it because it gets in their way, causes coworkers to put up low-quality AI-generated code for peer review, and struggles with any level of complexity or nuance.
My fear is that AI code assistants will inadvertently stop people from progressing from Junior --> Senior since it's easier to put out work without really understanding what you're doing. Although I guess I could have said the same thing about Stack Overflow 10 years ago.