10x code is mostly overrated. The first goal of any code is to solve a problem for the customer/business and solve it fast enough. The second goal is to make it efficient/repeatable etc as needed. But if you never meet the first goal, the 2nd goal is moot. So, based on how real world works, Bob is going to be a lot more valuable to any company unless you are building something that is very core to the machine (like an OS etc). Then, may be Bill.
Absolutely. But in the end the senior dev has to understand the code, review the code and publish it as "his/her" code. So, that is the level of commitment I would see...
No. AI is killing the average/mediocre/order taker roles whether frontend or backend or full stack. Nt because it is necessarily better than the mediocre ones but because it is 100x cheaper. Can't beat that. My honest answer.
Happy for Tailwind as this was possible the best outcomes possible for them at this stage. It is clear that most of the frameworks for software are going to struggle significantly because of AI. Especially CSS frameworks. No one cared about writing CSS code by hand before AI and now with AI, no one needs to care about frameworks as well. AI writes it for you so I don't care whether its tailwind or plain css.
8/10 times, you don't need these 3rd party providers. Yes, someone is going to tell me all about the SSOs, SCIMs, Audit Logs etc etc but the point is that 8/10 applications are simple enough to build their own Auth. The rest, go for these services. I never understood the appeal of these 3rd party providers who can hold you hostage just for your users to login ? In 2026 ? I don't get it. May be I am dumb.
I don't care what my level is. I fire it up, try to prompt what I need to and get things done. If it doesn't do what I want, I update my prompt accordingly.
"The worst part is that AI is covering up their deficiencies. They don’t know what skills they lack. They don’t even know what skills are required because they haven’t put the effort in."
This is the biggest issue with AI. It is incredible when in the right hands (Senior devs who know good fundamentals and know how to code) but really bad when in wrong hands (Juniors with no fundamentals but they are made to believe that they know what they are doing).
It's a catch-22 because juniors need AI to be competitive, but you need to do the grunt work yourself for a few years before you really build the skills necessary to advance. I can't imagine learning how to do math by simply reading a solution book.
You cannot speed run human learning. Investing time to read and absorb the material, repeatedly exercising and expanding your understanding, is the only path.
Not coincidentally, this is exactly how we train our AI.
Edit: but to answer your question, an AI harness can only emulate the best teaching methods. Learning is up to the human.
I really disagree with that stance. It would be trivial to have it ask you questions about what it produced to ensure you understand. I’ve literally already done that several times.
"Understanding" someone else's solution is not comparable to solving it on your own, even if you can answer some questions about it. It builds extremely fragile surface-level understanding.
That struggle and repeated failure before finally connecting the dots on your own is how you build intuition and deep understanding.
Yes, all learning takes practice, it's the core of how our brain learns things. Any tool that eliminates the practice part means suboptimal, or zero, learning. Practice isn't just for physical tasks like riding a bike. All skills take practice, meaning repeated cycles of failures over a long time horizon.
Go is extremely easy to pickup. If you know any language you probably know Go already for the most part (channels notwithstanding).
I wouldn't say it is a "beautiful" language however. Though that is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the Go designers were even really going for beauty.
They were going for readability. You can make some impossible to read code with C++ because the programmer was too clever, and the designers of golang wanted to avoid that.
They were, very unfortunately, outsmarted by said too-clever programmers. As such I would like to request my enums and ternaries be returned to me. Trust me, they will not make a dent in the messes people have still managed to create.
These types of articles needed to be written because we have gone way too much in the other direction. The issue is that people use too many tools prematurely when they are not needed at their stage. So yea, in most cases, you are probably better off just with Postgres. I m a culprit of this myself so I wouldn't say that I know better. It is just too tempting to setup too many tools to feel cooler or feeling that "we must use elasticsearch as no one does search in db".
reply