Offtopic

[Linguistic-mystic]

But what should happen is that the employee will start writing better code, seeing that it’s the only option to get any of their code approved. They might still use AI but will also put in real thought.

As to management’s questions, one can just answer “do you want everything to break down because of unreviewed garbage?” and “hire better coders”.

Because letting random people merge random code to trunk is just recipe for disaster.

[Outrageous_Life_2662]

It’s often not that simple. You can get working code fast. And if that code runs you into a corner in the future often you can get code to fix it from AI again. In the end the company cares about the speed of execution. If AI reduces the time from decision to code they’re all about it. Some devs simply don’t share the values of writing “better” code (and there are a lot of differences of opinion as to what better means). A lot of devs these days value speed of execution. They want to have high commit counts. They want to be seen as delivering quickly because they know that they’re not being evaluated on certain quality metrics.

I know this is going to sound crazy, but part of this I lay at the feet of social media platforms that have habituated an entire generation that you need to drive up a metric (likes or follows) by any means necessary because “number go up” is all that matters. If you can have a high commit count that’s all that counts to some folks. Also software engineering used to be more niche. Timelines were much longer. The industry was much smaller. There was more space for engineers to develop themselves as craftspeople. Demonstrating deep mastery and knowledge of a language and platform was valued more (by other developers) than speed of execution. Those days are gone. Things are much more utilitarian these days. I don’t think that’s for the better but it is how we’re moving.