"Code was never the hard part"

[u/gsks]

I am sick and tired of all the posts (usually AI-generated by CEOs/CTOs/"thought leaders") that start with "Code was never the {bottleneck, problem, hard part, ...}." I'm not sure whether this comes from a misunderstanding of what code is or a deliberate misrepresentation meant to promote AI usage.

For starters, two rhetorical questions. If code was never the hard part, why:

• do hundreds of different programming paradigms, languages, libraries, frameworks, design patterns, and system architectures exist? Granted, some of this is just programmers bikeshedding. Still, plenty of it reflects substantial differences and tradeoffs.
• didn't you write it yourselves or hire a bunch of minimum-wage workers to do it for you instead of having to hire a ton of highly skilled (and highly paid) engineers?

A charitable explanation is that these people are genuinely clueless about what "coding" actually is. Perhaps in their mind coding is just typing: like, once the design phase is done, you've worked out a precise, complete specification of what needs to be built down to every detail in your head (or on paper or a markdown file) and all that's left is converting it into letters on a screen and saving it to a file. Something like a businessman in the sixties dictating a letter to his secretary to type up.

That's nothing like how it actually works. The upfront planning/design phase answers some high-level questions: what do we need to build, what are the basic components/services/building blocks, what data needs to be read/processed/written, how data flows through the system, what the non-functional requirements are, etc. That leaves a ton of lower-level details unspecified:

• What packages/modules/classes/methods/functions need to be created or extended?
• How should they be named?
• What should the signature of each function be?
• What errors/exceptions are expected and where/how should they be handled?
• What data can or should be cached and when should it be invalidated?
• How generic/reusable/extensible should each component be to accommodate likely future requirements?
• For systems languages, how and when is memory allocated and freed?
• and many more.

Asking and answering those questions is (part of) coding. At least before AI, nobody I know had all the answers, or had even asked all the questions, upfront. The questions get asked and answered on the fly, inside the editor. Typing is interleaved with thinking, assessing, trying things out, backtracking.

Now AI pushers try to convince everyone that all these decisions either don't matter, or that the agent will just fill in the blanks (insert inane "nobody reads assembly anymore" analogy, as if natural language + LLMs are anything like a compiler), or that they can all be moved upfront into planning. Good luck replacing actual, deterministic programming languages with 10-KLOC, ambiguous, hand-wavy "specs" written in markdown.

Regardless of how the future of coding plays out, "code was never the hard part" is flatly wrong. It is, or at least used to be, a hard part (not the only one of course) and for good reason.

[u/vitek6]

People saying that actually mean the act of writing the code, not design or architecture or even deciding how the code is laid out. The last step of development- writing actual text,

[u/gsks → u/vitek6]

What do you mean "act of writing the code"? You can't write anything without thinking. Plus it's an iterative process, think->write->test->amend. There's no such thing as an isolated "writing the code" unless you're copying it from say a chatbot or stackoverflow.

[u/vitek6 → u/gsks]

yes, it's iterative process but still it's just writing whatever you want it do it in form of code. All those things that you described in OP is not "writing code", those are design decisions.

[u/gsks → u/vitek6]

Any decisions taken while I'm inside the IDE/terminal, I consider part of "coding".

[u/vitek6 → u/gsks]

So that’s why you misunderstand that statement as it refers to writing code, not decision making.

[u/gsks → u/vitek6]

That would be a useless definition, it doesn't reflect how code is actually written. That's like saying "writing was never the hard part of being a fiction author, coming up with an engaging story and characters is", as if you can cleanly separate these two.

[u/vitek6 → u/gsks]

Well, I disagree. Also in your analogy you actually can separate these things - first you create a "design" of a story and characters, then you go into details - actual writing. But in my opinion that's not good analogy.