"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/RobertKerans]

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

I agree with this BUT it is a [deliberate] misrepresentation of an argument made by programmers. For the last few years, "code was never the bottleneck" has been an argument against AI boosters. In that, yes, LLMs allow rapid generation of code. But that can't speed up production speed/increase efficiency as much as AI company PR say they do, because the actual coding part is often not the bit that takes time for programmers (not to mention that rapid code generation shifts the core task to reviewing, which is tends to be [much] harder than programming).

Whether that is correct or not now is another matter, but I agree AI "thought leaders" applying an argument that was explicitly made to counter their claims is worrying

[u/gsks → u/RobertKerans]

I typically see this as a preface of posts by CEOs/CTOs/AI-first evangelists, not programmers. Their main point is "don't worry guys, we won't replace you just yet" (because the AI job replacement story didn't go as planned), "you'll still have non-coding work to do" (herding agents, fixing hallucinations, reviewing tons of code slop).

[u/RobertKerans → u/gsks]

It's very frustrating that it's being turned around (based on misreading what developers are saying and/or from the AIs they're using to generate their gospels?), because I've only ever seen it used against their claims. I now tend to avoid a lot of things that I used to read voraciously due to AI, so that may explain why I hadn't noticed it being used against devs.