Don't call yourself an artisanal programmer
purplesyringa.moe
purplesyringa.moe
>> “artisanal” coders who value the experience of coding over the final product
I don't see "artisanal" as that. It may be more that they value the details rather than the experience of coding. They value the details of the final product. Details that most people will not care about. The details that are present in bespoke clothing but missing in fast fashion, the details that are present in a good restaurant's food but missing from a gas station food item.
But in the first phase of industrialization, the quality went up - exactly because we suddenly had specific measurements and tolerances.
The markets however did what they do best: optimize for profit. And the public markets preferred cheap over quality... At least in the consumer space. Objectively quality has significantly improved across the board with every decade. Just not in consumer goods, because of their consistent spending habits
So in my mind a craftsman is something akin to an artist. Whereas an engineer provides solutions.
an engineer uses tools that represent the current state of the science, while a craftsman uses tools passed down as archaic art that require meticulous skill to use rather than repeatable math
Very little of it lasts for long. And if it does, it's legacy banking or some ossified terrible thing people are afraid to touch - not something revered.
Every piece of software today will be rewritten. By 2100 much of it will be dead and gone. Like punch cards that have rotted away.
Or there's this 87% number, but it's based on "no longer a legal way to buy it," not that it's not archived/preserved: https://gamehistory.org/87percent/
We don't have to count amateur projects but the commercial releases in the US is not the entirety of the gaming history. There are other countries with their own rich gaming histories and other platforms (e.g. browser, mobile) that don't get the same attention as American releases for PC or popular consoles.
I cannot play a single game from my childhood, they were early flash games "for girls" and they were not in English. Nobody archived those.
The actual artisans don't need to advertise themselves as artisans, they just sell shit.
There are always exceptions, of course, and people that seek out crafted goods often want to climb over counters and into workshops .. but the crafting time tends to outweigh the selling time by a magnitude or two.
The true crossovers are the artisans that make crafting a performance and sell by making, eg: Lino Tagliapietra - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luU1mlCZc8U
A good engineer will acknowledge this tradeoff between robustness and cost and behave accordingly. For example, if you're working on safety critical or very foundational systems like OSes, medical tech, etc you should bias very heavily in favor of robustness. If you're not, this can easily be an act of overengineering. The engineer's job is to find the right spot along the cost-correctness curve for the thing they are building.
This has always been true, and LLMs just change certain parts of the equation. For example, code writing is far less of a bottleneck than before, so "we can just try with a throwaway impl and see if this works" is suddenly economically viable. It also turns out that many things, in practice, don't need to be as correct as some of us may have believed.
We can still enjoy making quality things, but doing so is often an act of artisanship rather than engineering.
The economic costs of LLM use have been abstracted away, but they're still very much there. The ecological cost of building and running data centres will be a pretty heavy economic cost somewhere in the future. It's not obvious, but it still exists.
(I'm not dumping on LLMs — otherwise I wouldn't even be here. I'm not a glutton for punishment. I know well that HN users excited about LLM use now vocally outweigh, and are pretty intolerant of people who are more on the cautious/negative end of the spectrum. I don't want that trouble in my life).
A builder fits that description. Even a cook fits that description.
Engineering is something else. It's hard to describe what it is, probably why it has its own word. Dictionaries probably offer a definition.
> A good engineer will acknowledge this tradeoff between robustness and cost and behave accordingly.
An engineer will never intentionally produce something shoddy for cost reasons. They will simply refuse to do it. What you are getting at it some tasks don't require an engineer at all. You want to build a bridge to span a kilometer of water? You need an engineer. You need to occasionally cross a ditch? Anyone could lay plank across. No engineer required. The author makes this point too, with software craftsmen.
we built cathedrals without a detailed understanding of load calculations and material properties
The demand curve is different because it’s low stakes, like throwing a bad party or oversalting food. And part of the problem in software to begin with is too much LARPing about scale/engineering for things that don’t need it, as well as lack of accountability or care for things that do.
You can still be an “engineer” working on a game, it’s just more about making the game fun than making it safe. Or, you create a process for making and test hundreds of experimental bridges, and refine/invest additional time in understanding and verifying the safety of the best one.
You build in safeguards, redundancy, defense in depth, recovery systems. You build models of the system and prove characteristics about it.
Software is fundamentally automation. LLMs enable automating the construction of software itself. They're much faster and cheaper than people, and they're more unreliable. (People are unreliable too!)
The immediate challenge of these times is figuring out how to reliably construct reliable software in the large, over the longer term, reliably. This is an engineering challenge, and the only way we'll get to the other side of it is by trying to do it. Things will be rough, there will be a Cambrian explosion of techniques, most approaches will fail, and many more won't survive as models improve on quality and capability. But we'll figure it out.
Making things by hand, as in the time before agentic coding, can be engineering too, but it is not the core challenge of these times, and it will soon be a hobby, or possibly a kind of luxury good. You will no more want hand-written software than you'll want a hand-made car. It will not have the precision, performance or reliability of machine-made software.
It does require a different kind of ego/abilities than before. My (negative) framing of the whiplash effect is that it’s a reckoning of “process fetishism”/a bad kind of careerism in the tech hiring market (because for the labor market to work, candidates need to be evaluable and sortable by businesses, and many people build an identity/optimize for legibility around “best practices” or very particular “technologies” which might get them a job).
Ultimately, you need to know and learn/be responsible for stuff, and be able to help people with your labor, not be “a type of person” that isn’t effective at the task of helping. But at the same time knowing things and being able to take accountability/help people remains critical, especially because that’s what people will want to pay for even as “time spent typing it in” decreases.
Personally, I think it will be a good thing because software and “tech” will become a more strongly domain-driven/enabling medium for real-world or specialized things. IE it is the end to “software for its own sake” or “willingness to type it in and play with Jira/jenkins/frameworks” and the beginning of something that is more applicable or knowledge-building rather than “being the X for Y at Z”. Harder but more fun :)
LLMs have very little to do with engineering, unless you let a pair of dice decide how you build a house.
Cars are not built by AIs, they're built by extremely precise robots, over precise instructions.
I'd VERY much want a hand-made car over an LLM-made car, thank you.
Because I do want the precision, reliability and performance that an LLM-made car won't ever be able to guarantee.
As long as you can verify/test and take accountability for the thing you put your name on there’s no reason not to treat it as a process or search problem rather than one you assemble yourself by hand. The only problem is that it’s ironically much harder and more engineering than most “software engineers” are willing or able to do.
I spent several years working on permutation testing/experimentation and creating e2e verification of infrastructure because at scale, or when reliability/correctness are critical, you cannot rely on a single person’s mental model, or for the world to not drift around a system as it works now. That kind of system is what allows you to use LLMs or engineers who don’t know everything about it to improve or change it. It’s more science than art, which is often (but not always) what you want
Somewhere (maybe the 1960s?) the idea crept in that programming is some kind of production process, and the "engineering" happens upstream. Elsewhere, the line between engineering design and manufacturing is the transition of a set of documents to those with the skills to turn what those documents specify into real products in a reliable, repeatable manner. That repeatability is one of the hallmarks of manufacturing. For software, all the processes reliable enough to qualify are downstream of typing `make` and striking return, ending in the binaries and the computational processes that those paying the bills desire. It's our build and deployment tools that do the construction, which means that our source code is the final, detailed design.
There is a big difference from a players point of view. Games are much more than code, and the code is a way to represent game mechanics instead of a product by itself. AI graphics and music are instantly recognizable as bad quality and uncreative but vibe coding only shows when the game is slow or has a lot of bugs. And if that happens players dont care if its AI or not, just that its broken.
Games dont really need to care about code quality as much as other projects. They dont have to constantly adapt to competition and developers never really need to update them, unless there are game breaking bugs or a critical security issue. That means they change a lot less than your average code.
Balatro is coded in a way that sometimes looks like a beginners first Lua script, even after the publisher got outside help to polish it before full release. But it still works and sold millions of copies. Games are built on design intuition and user testing, not technical quality.
For the ethical side, there is a perception that programmers are actively using AI for coding and would do it even if the publisher wasnt making them, but artists are getting fully replaced against their will. And there is clearly some truth to it because we dont see coders in game studios speaking out against it.
On the plus side, they're usually promoted very quickly to management and never code again.
Jokes really do write themselves sometimes...
Bruh
The myth that we've been shipping perfect code for years, but you can't trust LLMs, is just subjective blindness. People can't see the issues that they can't see, definitionally.
You can absolutely use the exact techniques we used to use in "the old days" to produce reliable code with LLMs generating most of it. The issue is, it's really not a lot less conceptual and intellectual effort than in "the old days", at root. You speed up the programming part, but the rest is still a hard slog, so nobody is out here doing really thorough testing in ways we used to dream of.
I’m still in the process of revisiting and refining the many hand-coded dependencies that I’ve created, over the years.
Most of the issues found, were corner cases, that would likely never be encountered, but they are issues, nonetheless.
When I started, I had to review every line, and frequently found bugs, but lately, I’ve been impressed with the quality of the code. I don’t think that I’ve had to make any code-level adjustments, in a while.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news: human coding has not improved a lick since then.
This can be seen more clearly with self-driving cars as an example. A self-driving car may be safer than a human driver, but when the self-driving car plows into the side of a semi truck in broad daylight… that’s generally not a mistake a human would make. Humans and AI have different failure modes, so when AI fails where we generally wouldn’t, it really stands out and gets judged harshly.
There are two steps to writing the program: building a model in your head to map understanding to algorithms, and then implementing the algorithm in code (and of course this can get recursive if the algorithm relies on other high-level mechanisms, like data structures).
I have found that most of the time, the kind of bugs that unit tests find are typos, i.e. mistakes in the second step; but the errors that actually cost time to resolve are errors in understanding, i.e. the first step.
They can't be found with testing or verification because what it means for code to be correct depends on the specification, and the error is that the specification itself is incorrect. Asking an LLM to check this one specific part of the software is thus useless, and whole-program analysis is not cheap enough to employ at this point.
So what about avoidance? When I say hand-written code is 100% correct (or at least approaches that number), I mean that with experience, I learn more about which models tend to be correct, and thus avoid bugs of the latter kind by construction. Of course typos still exist, which is why I write unit tests, and I expect LLMs to be able to find them as well; but I believe the only way to avoid incorrect models is to learn stuff by doing, failing and failing again, figuring out nitty-gritty low-level details, until at some point you become an expert in that area and know what to use.
Not a loaded question but a genuine one.
It's of course impossible to have any nuance or middle ground here where you use LLMs to assist while you still focus on the engineering design decisions and the quality.
"Does it work" is what matters. We already know that "do this make no mistakes" works on some things. And then some things that are very "wide" e g "integrations for lots of different things" you basically write a new layer of software on top of the software in specs and .md and that yields a software project that you can mostly just add features by asking for them. But there's still deep narrow projects where creating that context is way more work than just implementing it. And then you have some projects where you can mix approaches and use the "metasoftware" for all the cicd and boring bits but not the core. I'd argue all of the above it's kind of meaningless to try to distinguish it as even if it's fully handrolled an llms still there as a search engine and task runner.
Holy reach