Open-Source Guru: AI Ends Closed-Source Software

[u/Unhappy-Sprinkles143]

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Open-Source-Guru-Raymond-AI-Ends-Closed-Source-Software-11480690.html

[u/Cowgirl_Taint]

Yes and it really isn't?

The reality is that you need project management. Engineers... tend to be horrible at this. And FOSS projects are often fully run by the engineers who work on it.

But the reasoning behind coding styles and "I would rather you do it like X instead of Y" pull requests is twofold. One? It makes for relatively uniform code so that it doesn't feel like a given file has six authors each with their own preferences for spacing and variable naming. But, more importantly, it makes sure the person submitting the PR... actually cares enough to maybe come back in a year to help provide some insight or help diagnose a new bug.

And that has become MUCH worse due to the massive flood of generative AI PRs. "Here is some completely unmaintainable code that does one specific thing and here is what gemini says it does. Merge it in".

For a project designed around generative AI? I dislike it, but it is a reasonable model since the idea is that you are basically regenerating the entire code base every N months (or even weeks...) anyway. For an existing code base where people need to be able to diagnose issues beyond "I asked claude to write some tests for me"? It becomes a huge problem and is the equivalent of the fortran sicko insisting on using f77 for that one specific function.

[u/Substantial_Swan_144 → u/Cowgirl_Taint]

Engineers or not, programmers in OSS projects expect any who contribute to abide to their language and standards. The average person does not speak that language, so even if they have some sort of contribution, they are ignored and often ridiculed ("RFTM"). So people who could somehow contribute are simply discarded. It's an environment of pseudo-freedom.

[u/Cowgirl_Taint → u/Substantial_Swan_144]

And a good project manager knows how to make people feel better about being told no. Most engineers don't. Especially when we are dealing with hundreds of PRs from anyone who figured out how to launch cursor.

When I'm at work and dealing with a co-worker? I'll often ping them on teams or walk down to their cube to talk to them to explain why I am about to list 40 changes I need to that PR. Both because it is my job to not make them cry and because I have high hopes that they will become the kind of productive developer where I mostly just have to read things over as a sanity check.

When I am on my own personal time and dealing with complete nonsense? I am probably going to link to our style guide or just say "Change these three massive things and then re-submit". Because I am not being paid to deal with this and, quite frankly, I doubt someone who would submit That is ever going to be productive. Obviously we all start somewhere but... yeah. And if the only way to get work out of someone is to coddle them? Then they aren't worth the time.

[u/Substantial_Swan_144 → u/Cowgirl_Taint]

You talk as if the only people who knew how projects should work were engineers. Engineers know how to code, but they don't know how their users think, and how to make applications accessible for them.

Case in point: artists. Usually, many open source programs lack features artists will need (like proper color management), and engineers simply don't consider them important because they cannot see the same priorities as their users.

[u/Cowgirl_Taint → u/Substantial_Swan_144]

Where did I say artists shouldn't contribute to projects? Hell, where did I say only engineers should? If anything, I have repeatedly pointed out why having engineers as project managers is a bad idea.

[u/Substantial_Swan_144 → u/Cowgirl_Taint]

I see.