They honestly have no idea what "software engineering" in a professional context even looks like. So they come up with this prattle.
Also, a major feature of "vibe coding" now is the rough edges on UI design that don't make sense at all... It's pretty obvious that code bases aren't evolving because these systems can't handle complex prompts while retaining features from prior releases, and it seems like functional testing for releases has now become the kid who can't speak that fell down a well... Oh well.
Without industry experience and/or software engineering education, they zoom past a lot of hard-won lessons.
E.g. the node.js packaging ecosystem wouldn't have committed so many own-goals if it'd been designed by people with more historical awareness
In time, vibe coders will rediscover test driven development, but until then you'll have to deal with watching monkeys try to construct buildings by stomping hard and frequently enough that the atoms self-assemble.
Consequently, this was the reason businesses had junior devs partnered with senior devs! It's not surprising that when you pair junior devs (human) with junior devs (gen ai coding) you still get junior dev issues.
Personally, I think AI coding tools being able to translate incomplete junior dev thinking into senior dev work is an impossible task. There's just not enough initial intent signal in the novel task use case (read non-'CRUD LOB app').
I do think eventually we'll have complementary expert tools that perform a senior dev-alike function (arch and security review), but that's a harder problem that likely isn't going to be economically viable as a product until/unless AI coding tools achieve substantial penetration.
I am directly calling into question the "value" of that process. It's also becoming increasingly clear that these tools just whitewash away the copyrights of the materials they were trained on and still mostly reproduce when asked. This would then actually be the destruction of value.
> invoking a a no-true-Scotsman
I did not. This is in response to an article. It demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of professional software engineering and instead imagines that writing a good spec is all there is to actually do. It displays a definite lack of understanding of the fundamentals of engineering or of profitable business.
> is a good example of a lack of soft skills.
You seek appeasement instead of understanding and you call into question my skills? I see now what you think this forum is for.
Calling you out for being overly critical is not 'seeking appeasement'. I am calling your skills into question -- why shouldn't I? Your soft skills seem to consist of attacking people when you don't like what they have to say.