Sure, there are times in a familiar codebase that it would take Claude or any model longer to get its bearings and chew on all the random nonsense it wants to think about even for small changes than it takes me to open vim and make a one line change.

And, sometimes, I know models will write it in a way I don't like, over-engineering is common.

But, I mostly use models for more than few lines of code or code that isn't in a familiar project.

Of course. I am still writing code.

I divide the code into two types: one is the working code that needs to solve problems, so I will focus most of my energy on adjusting the environment for the LLM, to help the LLM write code better. The other is when I want to do and research certain things, I need to know the principles of certain things, so I will focus on looking at this part of the code and understand it myself.

Yes. I work on legacy systems where the training data was minimal. The code that I get back from the LLMs is confused - it pulls objects and methods from other languages, makes up APIs that don't exist, etc. It also doesn't understand the bigger picture of what all is possible in the system, so it gives me over-engineered code that could be done really simply using other tools.

I am building Aphorio. I am wrapping up work on a new universal proxy rule convention designed for simplicity, speed, and maximum flexibility. It already has the fastest WebSocket library that can push messages at a speed of 6,000,000 per sound on a single socket in a memory unsafe way or 800,000 messages per sound in a more conventional way.

The app is entirely written by a human without AI in TypeScript. I am writing this because data integration is a ridiculously expensive commercial market ripe for disruption. There are so many companies that get hooked into automation solutions like MuleSoft only to bleed cash and beg to get off of it but don’t know how.

I've edited Bash scripts almost every day (including weekends) for decades and I'll continue doing so. Bash is the language I use to communicate with computers. I don't differentiate between writing Bash scripts and using Bash interactively. It's all the same. For me, using AI for Bash scripting would be like using AI to write emails.

In my experience, very few people who don't write shell scripts (Bash, Zsh, POSIX, etc.) know how to use a Unix shell effectively. For example, if a person never writes loops when using a Unix shell interactively, they have not yet achieved personhood.

> I can’t find a reason to anymore that’s actually necessary

The huge environmental and societal cost of LLMs, maybe?

Why do these questions implying writing code is a thing of the past keep coming?

Anthropic pretend in their S1 filling that they spend $3B in marketing, there's no need to help them really.

Yes. I was also considering Ask HN-ing that we should add a new flag in Who Is Hiring threads, like NOAGENTIC or similar. @dang

Absolutely.

I don't use AI at all and I don't see the appeal.

It's just addictive deskilling and false confidence. Why would I want to trade away my understanding of my codebases and my honed ability to produce, debug and predict problems ahead of time for that?

I already see what it has done to my coworkers, why would I want to join them?

Yes, mostly at work. But that's mainly because we're an MSP and our clients have a no-AI policy, but even otherwise, I don't imagine our clients will be very happy with us running agents against their systems/data or introduce unvetted slop into the environment.

At home, I manually create utility apps for personal and family use using niche languages like GAMBAS (a VB6 clone), and I've found that AI isn't really good at it. Besides, with the kind of simple utilities I make, it's far more easier to just do it myself than to fight with the AI (and then there's also the issue of long-term maintenance - if it's something I coded, it's far more easier for me to fix it, update it etc than to rely on AI for eternity).

All my work and personal coding is still by hand. The software we build just isn't suited to LLM coding.

I don't code at all now, but I did before, in trading and algo development. I was never a very good coder, but I put in the effort to get the job done. Later I hired and worked with developers on algos and software, until AI coding got good enough that my own output with AI overtook the devs I worked with. It didn't happen right away. It took me a while to get up to speed, alongside the models getting better, but that's been the real transition for me.

Sure. There's some problems I'm using it to solve - aggregating RSS feeds from places that don't offer them, mostly, and a series of backup scripts.

The next project is going to be a browser-based character sheet for an RPG game a friend of mine is trying to resurrect.

Could you please clarify your premise and thought process? This is not making sense to me. I wanted to answer "yes", but I don't understand the question on a second look.

I appreciate that the OP is asking hn, but I'm curious sbout selection bias here.

I'm writing slightly less code thsn I used to - but only slightly. The difference is mostly tests and refactors and semi-boilerplate stuff. I still live in an IDE.

So am I just a dinosaur at this point, and the entire sw industry has just relocated to agent harnesses and software factories? Because I see comments on hn quite regularly where people claim not to have written code for six months or whatever, and give the impression that traditional coding is anachronistic.

Or are there, in fact, plenty of (very many) people outside the hn bubble who are "still writing code" for various reasons - and who probably will be for quite some time?

Job interviews

Jobless and interviewing, hence I am writing some code.

[dead]