The job of a SWE is to not produce the most sublime readable code with cute language bells and whistles that you can show off to your other programmer friends. Yes its fun to do and interesting, but the main value in writing code is to express your intent so you and other people that are working with you can actually build something of value.
Software has value to the people on your team reading it. The product that you create with your software has a far wider impact than just that. As such, there is for _sure_ optimization pressure on "professional software engineering" to be more productive and actually make the product better to use, faster, with more features users like. The user typically does not care that you used a new C++26 feature, as much as I enjoyed writing it for them.
If I can produce features for users faster and I can iterate on them faster, this is a boon to me. I can program by hand for fun all I want in my spare time, but if I want to produce value for someone else, it is economically infeasible for me to be a luddite, and I will simply be outcompeted. Previously you were outcompeted by smarter teams who out executed you (and who also worked more), and now you can be out executed by basically anyone using an LLM who actually understands that the end goal is making a product that is pleasant to use and actually has utility, not code that is pleasant to read.
You can be an "performative/artisanal programmer" just as you can do "performative/artisanal martial arts." Just know that there will not be a large market for it in the real world.
Does cooking food serve any purpose beyond mass producing food for restaurants to sell?
Especially if it comes from Carmack, a guy who doesn't need to pay rent any more and can in fact live the rest of his life without concern for producing value, etc etc. He is currently doing exactly what he wants, just because he wants it. And that happens to be VR stuff, currently, afaik. And that's his choice. So when he speaks deeply condescending about other people doing exactly what they want ("retro computing is so delightful") it definitely comes from a different place as "hey I just want to pay my rent".
Well, yes? If you want to write code that isn't useful to anyone and just gives you warm fuzzies, go for it. I've done plenty of that. But it's exceptionally selfish to try to forbid technological improvements so that you can get paid to work exactly how you want to.
Does cooking food serve any purpose beyond mass producing food for restaurants to sell?
Should we ban industrial agriculture so that you can feel more proud of your rooftop garden?
how can one exist in modern society without being an exchange value in the capitalist political economy?
linux is where it is because it is able to be a critical part of said capitalist political economy. even if you want to be a FOSS contributor all your life, you need someone to figure out the "economy" part of it.
food is a false equivalence in this case.
The job value of an SWE is to maximize that profit. It doesn't matter if the product is better to use, faster, with more features users like - that's an early 20th century model of value production.
What matters is how much money the company can extract from its customers, and how little it can pay its employees. Use dark patterns, increase lock-in, and switch to a rental system with recurrent payments. Minimize employee benefits, require broad non-compete agreements, have long vesting periods and lay people off before its reached, or simply fire them and order the others to pick up the slack using AI.
If you want to write software meant to please the user, do that for fun in your spare time -- though remember that your employer still owns your IP, so it's not like you can create a market competitor.
Alas, the above was meant in sarcasm but is all too true.
The Luddites were not opposed to machines. They were opposed to bad labor practices, with machine-breaking as way of applying pressure on employers.
In the sense they were not opposed to all machines as a concept. They were definitely against machines they thought reduced their labor value:
"They wrecked specific types of machinery that posed a threat to the particular industrial interests in each region. In the Midlands, these were the "wide" knitting frames used to make cheap and inferior lace articles.[22] In the North West, weavers sought to eliminate the steam-powered looms threatening wages in the cotton trade. In Yorkshire, workers opposed the use of shearing frames and gig mills to finish woollen cloth.[23]"
Citations in
Otherwise it would be like claiming that an industrial union is opposed to people working in factories by pointing to a strike action and concluding they members just want to stand around outside the factory instead of work.
Recall that my comment is in response to "it is economically infeasible for me to be a luddite".
If that means something like "infeasible for me to oppose bad labor practices" then collective action is the typical response to bad labor practices.
If that means something like "infeasible for me to destroy the employer's use of AI" then I think that's mistaking what Luddites did as being the Luddite goal.
You can say Luddites were not only opposed to machines they thought cost them (which was the main reason they started the trouble they did at that point), but they also (insert labor practices).
Read their writings or contemporary reports. The wiki page has ample references to good material.
"Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labour practices of the time".
How is that meaningfully different than what I wrote?
If you don’t see the first as a not honest, misleading restatement of the latter, then we think fundamentally differently about accurate statements.
Here's a paragraph from p45 of my paperback edition of "The AI Con" on the Luddites:
"But Luddites were not against technology. Some Luddites, weavers in particular, were into technologies that helped evaluate the quality of their work, for instance, being able to count the number of threads per inch, such that they could fetch a higher prices at the market. Luddites were instead against technologies of control and coercion, and concerned about the loss of jobs, health, and community."
I do not think your assessment of my statement is correct.
As it happens, this was also the era when firearms had just been introduced to Japan. In 1575 Oda Nobunaga demolished the Takeda cavalry at the Battle of Nagashino, marking the first time firearms had been used at scale in Japanese combat, and in 1600 Musashi participated in the decisive Battle of Sekigahara where both sides used them extensively.
If it was still going on today, the warlords would be adopting drone warfare and vibecoded 3d printed cruise missiles.
The key for Nobunaga is "Ashigaru". Nobunaga gave the guns to the peasants. That also means that Nobunaga mass produced the guns to a level that no one else was doing.
Yes it was a technological brawl, but inadvertently it was one that worked with and uplifted the Ashigaru into a real combat force.
What you say is true for modernized budō disciplines. They have very different purposes.
But this this is not what Musashi was concerned with. He was practicing kenjutsu (not kendo) / writing about hyōhō.
The primary criterion was absolutely murdering people as efficiently as possible in a life and death situation.
"The true Way of sword fencing is the craft of defeating the enemy in a fight, and nothing other than this"
"We aren’t there yet, but carefully writing code completely by hand is moving from a -jitsu to a -do. "
IIRC Carmac has done judo (I'm not sure to what level).
That's a retroactively-applied justification to save the embarrassment for martial arts that don't make the cut for modern CQB.
Similar has already happened with martial arts, as OP mentions, and you've grown up with the new definition/focus not the original one.
I don't know how much weight your "just" is meant to carry, but I remember a culture of cope and excuses about why "my" flavor wasn't the winner of any MMA event.
But at least I got some exercise, strength, and flexibility out of it.
I think it's an interesting analogy, not to be dismissed so easily.
I don't see him saying the point is volume of code. I see AI generating code, and if I question it, it can justify design choices pretty well. I can give it bug symptoms, and it can find and fix the bug. Usually.
But yes, the analogy breaks down in the fact that I understand what it's saying and understand when it's wrong, because I learned it in the first place.
Or maybe it doesn't break down completely. If an MMA (AI) tells me to move in a way where I know I'll lose my balance, or over extend, I will say no, because of my previously acquired experience.