Just the other day I used cursor and iteratively implemented stories for 70 .vue files in few hours, while also writing documentation for the components and pages, and with the documentation being further fed to cursor, to write many E2Es, something that would've taken me at least few days if not a week.
When I shared that with some coworkers they went into a hunt to find all the shortcomings (often petty duplication of mocks, sometimes missing a story scenario, nothing major).
I found it striking as we really needed it and it provides tangible benefits:
- domain and UI stakeholders can navigate stories and think of more cases/feedback with ease on a UX/UI pov without having to replicate the scenarios manually doing multiple time consuming repetitive operations in the actual applications
- documentation proved to be very valuable to a junior that joined us this very january
- E2Es caught multiple bugs in their own PRs in the weeks after
And yet, instead of appreciating the cost/benefit ratio (something that should characterise a good engineer, after all, that's our job) of the solution, I was scolded because they (or I) would've done a more careful job missing that they never done that in the first place.
I have many such examples, such as automatically providing all the translation keys and translations for a new locale, just to find cherry picked criticism that this or that could've been spelled differently. Of course it can, what's your job if not being responsible for the localisation? That shouldn't diminish that 95% of the content was correct and provided in few seconds rather than days.
Why they do that? I genuinely feel some feel threatened, most of those reek insecurity.
I can understand some criticism towards those who build and sell hype with cherry picked results, but I cannot but find some of the worst critics suffering of Luddism.