zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
I have one very specific retort to the 'you are still responsible' point. High school kids write lots of notes. The notes frequently never get read, but the performance is worse without them: the act of writing them embeds them into your head. I allegedly know how to use a debugger, but I haven't in years: but for a number I could count on my fingers, nearly every bug report I have gotten I know exactly down to the line of code where it comes from, because I wrote it or something next to it (or can immediately ask someone who probably did). You don't get that with AI. The codebase is always new. Everything must be investigated carefully. When stuff slips through code review, even if it is a mistake you might have made, you would remember that you made it. When humans do not do the work, humans do not accrue the experience. (This may still be a good tradeoff, I haven't run any numbers. But it's not such an obvious tradeoff as TFA implies.)

>>pie_fl+33
> When stuff slips through code review, even if it is a mistake you might have made, you would remember that you made it.

I don’t know. Ever had the experience of looking at 5+ year old code and thinking “what idiot wrote this crap” and then checking “git blame” and realising “oh, I’m the idiot… why the hell did I do this? struggling to remember” - given enough time, humans start to forget why they did things a certain way… and sometimes the answer is simply “I didn’t know any better at the time, I do now”

> You don't get that with AI. The codebase is always new.

It depends on how you use AI… e.g. I will often ask an AI to write me code to do X because it gets me over the “hump” of getting started… but now this code is in front of me on the screen, I think “I don’t like how this code is written, I’m going to refactor it…” and by the time I’m done it is more my code than the AI’s

>>skissa+C4
Understanding code takes more effort than writing it, somehow. That's always been a huge problem in the industry, because code you wrote five years ago was written by someone else, but AI coding takes that from "all code in your org except the code you wrote in the past couple years" to "all code was written by someone else".

How well does your team work when you can't even answer a simple question about your system because nobody wrote, tested, played with the code in question?

How do you answer "Is it possible for our system to support split payments?" when not a single member of your team has even worked on the billing code?

No, code reviews do not familiarize an average dev to the level of understanding the code in question.

>>mrguyo+Tb
> Understanding code takes more effort than writing it

yes!

> somehow

not difficult to explain. Coding is a creative activity where you work top-down; you decompose the abstract/high-level into the detailed/low-level. You dictate the "events" happening to the code, you are in control. Reviewing is reactive; the code you review dictates what happens in your brain (you are under control, not in control), and you need to work bottom-up: you try to re-compose the whole from the fragments. Even for human coders, a detailed commit message is a pre-requisite before their code can undergo review. The reviewer is in the worse position, so he needs to be supported as much as possible.