-17
"Coding" is Largely "Solved" (raymyers.org)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Coding” is an ambiguous term for many tasks and responsibilities. There is no agreed upon boundary at which point it will be “solved”. Consider these three cliches making the rounds now:

  1. Coding is largely solved? (ambiguous point of contention)
  2. Verification is not solved. (consensus)
  3. Maintainability is not solved. (consensus)

I have practical needs and I don’t see them getting met by arguing the semantics of point 1 while we’re suffering from 2 and 3. On a level playing field we might be able to negotiate “coding is solved” into a meaningful conversation, but the funding doesn’t want that, it wants a Superintelligence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

My only caveat: I really haven’t tried Fable due to cost. Anyway, be well, mate. Enjoying the conversation despite disagreeing.

Well, that's why we're disagreeing 😄

I agree with everything you've said if you're using models weaker than Fable. The latest models (Astra, Opus 5.5, maybe Argon I haven't used it much) are a significant step up. Way more than the benchmarks suggest. It really is "ask and you shall receive". You might have to ask a few times but still...

Also caveat on my end: I've only tried vibe coding with Rust, because it's the best language available for humans and AI seems to like it too (lots of static checks). I have no idea the quality of code you'd get in other languages. I would be cautious before having it write C++ for example... though it's probably fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent