“In order to be effective working at any layer of abstraction you must have in-depth knowledge of the layer below where you’re at”.
To be the most effective at AI assisted engineering (if treated as an abstraction layer) you need to understand how code works, behaves, architectures etc. and what well performing, well built things look like. Doesn’t necessarily mean you have to know everything like you would pre-AI, but enough to be effective.
Not sure a personal attack against Jarred really helps the case for using Zig. He could have and should have focused on the language and not “a stinky manager”. Honestly, this makes me want to steer clear of Andrew as much as Jarred.
Reymont is quickly becoming infamous. He's got open PRs all over the place. Previously hit the frontpage here after showing up, _again_, on Zigs wall of shame for AI pull requests.
This reads even more like an angry teenager than my angsty high school diary. I'm not sure how many more strawmans and dismissive remarks I can handle in one article.
I can see that. Whether or not it's worth the time spent in setting it up is something I can't answer myself yet.
I think my biggest point further down is that you have to _already know_ that it's a bad idea - if you don't you can't instruct the agent to avoid it. What I see is so many more developers who just never get to that point now.
> For many people in this industry this became the default when Google and StackOverflow appeared. Is AI really so much different there if you look at the root cause? I feel AI is just another tool for quick answers without investing time in understanding the problem. That mentality is not new and has not changed in decades with previous knowledge bases. Sadly.
I'm aware it reads a bit like an angry old man yelling at the kids on his lawn, but I'm starting to get extremely frustrated with what I see and thought I'd write down some of the experiences.
Thank you. I think it is unfounded, but it's still a visceral belief and those can be hard to overcome. I'm hoping with time I can change my feelings on it.
You're absolutely right. I guess those artifacts don't resonate with me - and I did mention there's nothing wrong with enjoying this in the article. Good catch, I'll see if I can't reword it a bit :)
It went well yeah, it's a little bit at the end that I should have spent more time on :). We're stopping the climb up the management ladder and are identifying other resources to handle those responsibilities.
We talked frequently but I always kept my reservations about continually moving up the ladder pretty hidden. It wasn't until this realization and acceptance that I finally was extremely open and frank about things.
Hi, author here. Just want you to know that there's a human being with thoughts, feelings, hopes, etc. on the other side of that article. My experience in life isn't worthless. While it doesn't sound like it was valuable to you, I feel like it might be valuable to others in the same position. So if you have some constructive criticism on the writing - I'd be grateful - but if all you have is vitriol and lack of empathy, just move on.
The title might be a little dramatic, but I poured my heart into this article. I had to make some drastic decisions and big changes with regards to my career trajectory - and if I can inspire others to be true to themselves, then I'll be happy.
I'm working on a metadata catalog aimed towards scientific data. After standing up an enterprise data platform/lakehouse for science and laboratories, I've been really depressed by the current offerings and the massive oversight they have when dealing with scientific data. So I thought I'd change that. We're targeting not only the right kinds of data, but also connectors/integrations that reflect where most science data lives at these labs.