zlacker

What I'm most excited about is allowing developers to spend more of their time working on the work they enjoy, and less of their time working on mundane, boring or annoying tasks.

Most developers don't love writing tests, or updating documentation, or working on tricky dependency updates - and I really think we're heading to a world where AI can take the load of that and free me up to work on the most interesting and complex problems.

>>timrog+(OP)
Thanks for the response… do you see a future where engineers are just prompting all the time? Do you see a timeline in which todays programming languages are “low level” and rarely coded by hand?

>>timrog+(OP)
What about developers who do enjoy writing for example high quality documentation? Do you expect that the status quo will be that most of the documentation will be AI slop and AI itself will just bruteforce itself through the issues? How close are we to the point where the AI could handle "tricky dependency updates", but not being able to handle "most interesting and complex problems"? Who writes the tests that are required for the "well tested" codebases for GitHub Copilot Coding Agent to work properly?

What is the job for the developer now? Writing tickets and reviewing low quality PRs? Isn't that the most boring and mundane job in the world?

>>petetn+Pd
If find your comment "AI Slop" in reference to technical documentation to strange. It isn't a choice between finely crafted prose versus banal text. It's documentation that exists versus documentation that doesn't exist. Or documentation that is hopelessly out of date. In my experience LLMs do a wonderful job in translating from code to documentation. It even does a good job inferring the reason for design decisions. I'm all in on LLM generated technical documentation. If I want well written prose I'll read literature.

>>doug_d+fk
Documentation is not just translating code to text - I don't doubt that LLMs are wonderful at that: that's what they understand. They don't understand users though, and that's what separates a great documentation writer from someone who documents.

>>petetn+Im
Great technical documentation rarely gets written. You can tell the LLM the audience they are targeting and it will do a reasonable job. I truly appreciate technical writers, and hold great ones in special esteem. We live in a world where the market doesn't value this.

>>doug_d+ln
The market value good documentation. Anything critical and commonly used is pretty well documented (linux, databases, software like Adobe's,...). You can see how many books/articles have been written about those systems.

>>timrog+(OP)
Most developers don't love writing tests, or updating documentation, or working on tricky dependency updates

So they won’t like working on their job ?

>>bamboo+uB
You know exactly what they meant, and you know they’re correct.

>>tokioy+cC
I like updating documentation and feel that it's fairly important to be doing myself so I actually understand what the code / services do?

I use all of these tools, but you also know what "they're doing"...

I know our careers are changing dramatically, or going away (I'm working on a replacement for myself), but I just like listening to all the "what we're doing is really helping you..."

>>skydha+Nz
We’re not talking about AI writing books about the systems, though. We’re talking about going from an undocumented codebase to a decently documented one, or one with 50% coverage going to 100%.

Those orgs that value high-quality documentation won’t have undocumented codebases to begin with.

And let’s face it, like writing code, writing docs does have a lot of repetitive, boring, boilerplate work, which I bet is exactly why it doesn’t get done. If an LLM is filling out your API schema docs, then you get to spend more time on the stuff that’s actually interesting.

>>bamboo+1E
I'd interpret the original statement as "tests which don't matter" and "documentation nobody will ever read", the ones which only exist because someone said they _have_ to, and nobody's ever going to check them as long as they exist (like a README.md in one my main work projects I came back to after temporarily being reassigned to another project - previously it only had setup instructions, now: filled with irrelevent slop, never to be read, like "here is a list of the dependencies we use and a summary of each of their descriptions!").

Doing either of them _well_ - the way you do when you actually care about them and they actually matter - is still so far beyond LLMs. Good documentation and good tests are such a differentiator.

>>sourdo+RK
A much better options is to use docstrings[0] and a tool like doxygen to extract an API reference. Domain explanations and architecture can be compiled later from design and feature docs.

A good example of the kind of result is something like the Laravel documentation[1] and its associated API reference[2]. I don't believe AI can help with this.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docstring

[1]: https://laravel.com/docs/12.x

[2]: https://api.laravel.com/docs/12.x/

>>timrog+(OP)
Do you think you're putting yourself or your coworkers out of work?

If/when will this take over your job?

>>timrog+(OP)
> allowing developers to spend more of their time working on the work they enjoy, and less of their time working on mundane, boring or annoying tasks.

I get paid for the mundane, boring, annoying tasks, and I really like getting paid.

>>lepton+UQ
But would you rather get paid to spend your time doing the interesting and enjoying work, or the mundane and boring stuff? ;) My hope is that agents like Copilot can help us burn down the tedious stuff and make more time for the big value adds.

>>timrog+(OP)
>Most developers don't love writing tests, or updating documentation, or working on tricky dependency updates - and I really think we're heading to a world where AI can take the load of that and free me up to work on the most interesting and complex problems.

Where does the most come from? There's a certain sense of satisfaction in knowing I've tested a piece of code per my experience in the domain coupled with knowledge of where we'll likely be in six months. The same can be said for documentation - hell, on some of the projects I've worked on we've entire teams dedicated to it, and on a complicated project where you're integrating software from multiple vendors the costs of getting it wrong can be astronomical. I'm sorry you feel this way.

>>timrog+TR
Though I do not doubt your intentions to do what you think will make developers' lives better, can you be certain that your bosses, and their bosses, have our best interests in mind as well? I think it would be pretty naive to believe that your average CEO wouldn't absolutely love not to have to pay developers at all.

>>echelo+yN
The thought here is problem “well … I’ll obviously never get replaced”. This is very sad indeed

>>doug_d+fk
> If I want well written prose I'll read literature.

Actually if you want well-written prose you'll read AI slop there too. I saw people comparing their "vibe writing" workflows for their "books" on here the other day. Nothing is to be spared, apparently

>>skydha+Nz
Well documented meaning high quality, or well documented meaning high coverage?

>>timrog+TR
Id just rather get paid

>>ai-ske+1U
But this way the developers can spend all their time working on the truly interesting problems, like how to file for unemployment.

>>timrog+TR
But working on interesting things is mentally taxing while the tedious tasks aren't, I can't always work at full bore so having some tedium can be a relief.

>>ai-ske+1U
The profile indicates he's a product manager, not a developer.

>>timrog+TR
Not everyone gets to do the fun stuff. That's for people higher up in the chain, with more connections, or something else. I like my paycheck, and you're supposing that AI isn't going to take that away, and that we'll get to live in a world where we all work on "fun stuff". That is a real pie-in-the-sky dream you have, and it simply isn't how the world works. Back in the real world, tech jobs are already scarce and there's a lot of people that would be happy to do the boring mundane stuff so they can feed their family.

>>timrog+(OP)
What will you be most excited about when the most interesting and complex problems are out of the Overton window and deemed mundane, boring or annoying as well, or turn out to be intractable for your abilities?

>>tjpnz+US
He does not feel that way, he's just salespitching for Microsoft here

>>timrog+(OP)
But isn't writing tests and updating documentation also the areas where automated quality control is the hardest? Existing high quality tests can work as guardrails for writing business logic, but what guardrails could AI use to to evaluate if its generated docs and tests are any good?

I would not be surprised if things end up the other way around – humans doing the boring and annoying tasks that are too hard for AI, and AI doing the fun easy stuff ;-)

>>petetn+Pd
I'd argue the only way to ensure that is to make sure developers read high quality documentation - and report issues if it's not high quality.

I expect though that most people don't read in that much detail, and AI generated stuff will be 80-90% "good enough", at least the same if not better than someone who doesn't actually like writing documentation.

> What is the job for the developer now? Writing tickets and reviewing low quality PRs? Isn't that the most boring and mundane job in the world?

Isn't that already the case for a lot of software development? If it's boring and mundane, an AI can do it too so you can focus on more difficult or higher level issues.

Of course, the danger is that, just like with other automated PRs like dependency updates, people trust the systems and become flippant about it.

>>skydha+Nz
> Anything critical and commonly used is pretty well documented

I'd argue the vast majority of software development is neither critical nor commonly used. Anecdotal, but I've written documentation and never got any feedback on it (whether it's good or bad), which implies it's not read or the quality doesn't matter.

>>ayrton+PV
A lot (I'd argue most of it) of literature written by humans is garbage.

>>insin+UL
If we're talking about low quality tests and documentation that exists only to check a box, the easier answer is to remove the box and acknowledge that the low quality stuff just isn't needed at all.

>>echelo+yN
I'm honestly surprised that Microsoft (and other similarly sized LLM companies) have convinced or coerced literally hundreds of thousands of employees to build their own replacement.

If we're expected to even partially believe the marketing, LLM coding agents are useful today at junior level developer tasks and improving quickly enough that senior tasks will be doable soon too. How do you convince so many junior and senior level devs to build that?

>>ai-ske+1U
If that were possible it would happen anyway. You can’t hold back progress.

It’s very, very far from possible today.

>>Cthulh+Yv1
Sometimes the code, if written cleanly, is trivial enough for anyone with a foundation in the domain so it can act like the documentation. And sometimes, only the usage is important, not the implementation (manual pages). And some other times, the documentation are the sandards (file formats and communication protocols). So I can get why no one took the effort to compile a documentation manual.

>>Cthulh+Dv1
I think just having devs attempt to feed an agent openapi docs as context to create api calls would do enough. Simply adding tags and useful descriptions about endpoints makes a world of difference in the accuracy of agent's output. It means getting 95% accuracy with the cheapest models vs. 75% accuracy with the most expensive models.

>>_heimd+RZ1
When the options are "do what we tell you and get paid" vs getting laid off in the current climate, the choice isn't really a choice.

>>binary+Hi2
That threat doesn't scale. I do get that many haven't put themselves in a position to stand behind their views or principles, but if they did the threat, or the company, would crumble.

>>insin+UL
I’ve never seen a test that doesn’t matter that shouldn’t be slotted for removal (if it gets written at all) or documentation that is never read. If people can read code to understand systems, they will be grateful for good documentation.

>>timrog+TR
The only reason to listen to this would be to be naive about how capitalism works. Come on..

The goal here is for it to be able to do everything, taking 100% of the work

2nd best is to do the hard, big value adds so companies can hire cheap labor for the boring shit

3rd best is to only do the mundane and boring stuff

>>tjpnz+US

  > There's a certain sense of satisfaction in knowing I've tested a piece of code per my experience in the domain coupled with knowledge of where we'll likely be in six months. 

one of the other important points about writing unit tests isn't to just to confirm the implementation but to improve upon it through the process of writing tests and discovering additional requirements and edge cases etc (tdd and all that)

i suppose its possible at some point an ai could be complex enough to try out additional edge cases or confirm with a design document or something and do those parts as well... but idk its still after-the-fact testing instead of at design-time its less valuable imo...