Every day I witness the crazy wonder that is network knowledge / devops + agents from my colleagues. Things that were not possible become possible, assuming deep expertise. I feel for mathematicians like the author, but it will pass once the more creative possibilities reveal themselves and the shock passes.
You're just getting older and realizing something about yourself. The only way to preserve your attention is to guard it like a jewel. It is a learned behavior once you enter the real world.
I can. An OBE feels utterly real, minus the "oh shit... this is happening!" aspect of it all. It is not like a dream, even a lucid dream. And like a cliched cinematic experience you lift out of your body intact, as if there were two of you, one there and one here. It is legit and strange and the 'reality' of it is a lot to handle, after the fact.
I'm fully on the agentic coding train and haven't manually typed code in a while so I understand the sentiment around moving beyond this level of analysis. However, how can this advice work practically speaking, day to day? Especially at ones day job?
I'm sitting here working and just caught a handful of really bad decisions by the agent, one right after the other, cascading from an assumption that was incorrect. My ideas and architecture are sound in this codebase! Are those things simply to remain in the code if they work 'good enough', or are there consequences right around the corner?
If you try to quit something, you need to be patient. Like really patient. You can't know what its like until you've given it a few years -- especially if you've been taking them since you were a child. A whole new world might await you if you can figure this bit out.
I'm not being literal. Revolutionary technology arrives on the scene, is extremely visible, changes a whole industry and frankly creates an entirely new economy. All eyes on Anthropic.
They don't get enough credit for being right in the middle of a revolution, yet still managing to ship something that largely works incredibly well, because this thing is a workhorse.
Is it that, or is it just that every software developer, enterprise, dev and non-dev alike has their eyes on Claude Code as the most popular software project ever? Software in general has tons of bugs. People need to understand scale here, and what this looks like in practice. They're doing an incredible job given the circumstances.
Even clearer, if you don't adapt to the changes taking place in the field there might not be a future for you. Its not about age, it is about attitude and flexibility (which are, admittedly, issues when getting older).
In other words, if you want to continue stubbornly typing out code by hand, the person right over there has already mastered agentic tooling and is doing vastly more than you, more quickly, and with greater precision, and will simply be a more fit candidate to hire. Roles for this type of legacy stubborn personality will be less and less, and you will age out as part of the old school.
He just means: by this age you've probably found your preferred title and level, unless you want to rise to more C-level / executive positions, which are rarer in any case and most folks don't want.
It saves so much time! Think of the best find and replace and autocomplete and macro and every other possible super tool you use and roll everything into one. The design phase of any significant feature pales in comparison to all of the (now fully automated) tasks that you can just hand off to the agent to do nearly instantly and perfectly.
This is precisely why these types of articles don't make any sense to me, and strike me as case studies on human laziness. If you want good output, you'll review the output and iterate. If you want good foundations, you'll write them, and then later those foundations will prevent, to a very great degree, bad code from getting written by the LLM.
These articles frustrate me greatly. That said, the author's point about token cost is real, and a risk.