Thread

The problem is not AI code, but not knowing about system architecture or intent

388 points · 240 comments · zazuke

glouwbug · 1790613143 · focus · HN ↗
When you write something you constantly remodel your understanding through refactors and rewrites until you internalize it. By internalizing it you gain the capacity to reason about it (during critical downtime) and communicate it. An entire team that can communicate can solve problems together, from one guy's vision to products white boarding to engineering's infrastructure to UX and UI's artistry.
It boggles me we completely forgot that the world operated like this just 4 years ago
1. binarin · 1790622964 · focus · HN ↗
  There are still some places that operate that way, as outlined in this Jane Street talk <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR9PpXWsKFQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR9PpXWsKFQ (Production Engineering When Trading Billions of Dollars a Day).
  > capacity to reason about it (during critical downtime) and communicate it
  That's one of the things that's put into limelight in that talk.
  I personally think that most of "Web Scale" software is inconsequential (inconsequential for its creators, not for users) - as there are no consequences for bugs and outages at all. A data breach -> slap on a wrist. Reputational damage because on an outage/data loss amidst general public? - almost impossible (clownstrike, anyone?)
  The funny thing is that web scale software that's consequential is often in an ethically grey zone - but at least you won't be surrounded by colleagues who don't give a shit.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.