Hi, this is a question that popped into my mind when i saw an article about some AWS engineer talking about ai assistants taking over the job of programmers, this reminded me that it’s not the first time that something like this was said.
My software engineering teacher once told me that a few years ago people believed graphical tools like enterprise architect would make it so that a single engineer could just draw a pretty UML diagram and generate 90% of the project without touching any code,
And further back COBOL was supposed to replace programmers by letting accountants write their own programs.
Now i’m curious, were there many other technologies that were supposedly going to replace programmers that you remember?
i hope someone that’s been around much more than me knows something more or has some funny stories to share
sometimes, it feels like managers hate engineers, and are constantly plotting their replacement. maybe its because it hurts their ego to know that the engineers they manage worked harder to get there and deserve a higher salary.
or else, it could be office politics. anyone who can claim to have removed an entire department from payroll is due a huge raise.
They hate engineers because the engineers ask difficult questions that somebody needs to answer in order to really automate a process, and they take the time necessary to do so.
I don’t think it’s just managers saying hey we could automate such and such a thing away. It’s human nature to think “how could I improve this” which almost immediately leads to “if I get this right it could mean no work at all”
Every business’s biggest expense is labor. Skilled labor costs more. The people in charge like it when you save money.
I think it’s wrong. But only because the interests of the people who own the machines and businesses diverge from the worker’s interests. I’d like to see more worker cooperatives. If the workers own the machines, then it’s good when things are automated.
I also don’t believe anything will ever be truly automated, or that it’s a good idea to try.
All that to say we don’t have to resort to an explanation of “managers must hate engineers” to understand why they would want to eliminate positions.
So far my experience with ai is it cannot evaluate the quality of the data it uses to any significant degree. As such it can summarize which is convenient for searching and give examples but ultimately you have to correct its mistakes and know enough to do so. There is some savings for a programmer in the sense you might be able to get some rough scaffolding and its a bit eaiser to identify relevant search links but I don’t see it replacing developers. It definitely allows one to do more though or even increase the quality. One really great thing it can do is auto commenting of the code which does not need as much improvement as actual code and makes it more likely for you to do the task (both because it does it and because it causes you to go. no don’t explain it like that). Is similarly helps with documentation. I doubt it could more than double productivity though. At least as how it stands now. Im not sure it can do much better without becoming general ai.
One really great thing it can do is auto commenting of the code
But then it only comments the ‘what’, it cannot possibly know the ‘why’. I know, some devs disagree on that, but personally, I would rather not have what-comments in my code.
“AI” is just another productivity tool, copilot let’s you remove some of the tedious patterned work you do, like writing all those asserts in Unit tests, it’s decent at guessing html structures too.
So basically it makes a developer faster, but then so do stuff like a good IDE, good plugins for your workflow, etc.
i saw somewhere an interesting take, even if AI could generate all the code for all the edge cases, you’d still need people to translate what business wants for the AI to understand properly.
Writing code is already a small part of a developers job, completely eliminating it won’t eliminate a developers job.
“So, with AI writing code for us, all we need is an unambiguous way to define, what all our business requirements are for the software, what all the edge cases are, and how it should handle them.”
Salesforce advertised “No more developers” for awhile in the mid 2010s. It was great fun trying to clean up the mess all the “not programmers” made of those systems. I really hate Salesforce. They must have some of the best sales people on the planet.
Rational Rose etc. could generate code from UML diagrams, then you “only” needed architects.
In reality it only gave a little help during the design phase, as soon as someone touches the generated code, you have to manually merge changes to UML.
It’s really weird, though, that nobody really created a language/tool to bridge these two world. It’s always just generating one representation from the other, mostly in a bad way.
I’d argue, that for many problems, a graphical view of the system can help reasoning. But there simply is nothing in that regard.
For OOP languages, you can definitely get IDE plugins, which create UML from code.
Personally, I’ve never found them useful, though, partially because our code was never OOP enough, e.g. we were using the actor pattern, or had important modules with functions, or had lots of small classes for handing data around etc…
But also because it just makes for bad architecture diagrams.
It has no sense of what’s important and what should be abstracted away. Or how to structure the diagram to make it readable, e.g. REST API at the top, database at the bottom.
What I also really don’t like about generated architecture diagrams in general (even when the contents are specified via e.g. PlantUML), is that things jump around every time you make a structural change. This means people looking at the diagram have no chance of learning what it looks like, so they can spot changes or know where to look for what they’re interested in.
Was thinking that may be why it’s taking so long. It’s akin to knowing you have to train your human replacement before you’re fired. You can’t possibly teach a program or human everything you know in a limited time; and a great many don’t want to do.
The thing that made me laugh when I saw the article that OP mentions is that it was coming from AWS.
In my testing AWS’s Titan AI is the least useful for figuring out how to do things in AWS. It’s so terrible that Amazon just announced they’re using Claude for Alexa’s upcoming “AI” features.
The earliest I can think of (from personal experience) is 4GL languages; the early low-code platforms that first started to get traction in the early 80s. They wouldn’t have replaced programmers but some thought/hoped they would usher in an age of “low skill” programmers that companies could get away with paying minimum wage to.
Oh yeah, low-code platforms in general are pretty much always a thing, in every industry for various tasks.
I’ve also never seen any of them that were not horribly abused with ridiculous workarounds or custom code snippets, which effectively made them as complex as a real program.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
sometimes, it feels like managers hate engineers, and are constantly plotting their replacement. maybe its because it hurts their ego to know that the engineers they manage worked harder to get there and deserve a higher salary.
or else, it could be office politics. anyone who can claim to have removed an entire department from payroll is due a huge raise.
They hate engineers because the engineers ask difficult questions that somebody needs to answer in order to really automate a process, and they take the time necessary to do so.
I don’t think it’s just managers saying hey we could automate such and such a thing away. It’s human nature to think “how could I improve this” which almost immediately leads to “if I get this right it could mean no work at all”
that explains why the idea to replace engineers would enter peoples minds, but not why they would try so, so hard to get people to believe it.
Every business’s biggest expense is labor. Skilled labor costs more. The people in charge like it when you save money.
I think it’s wrong. But only because the interests of the people who own the machines and businesses diverge from the worker’s interests. I’d like to see more worker cooperatives. If the workers own the machines, then it’s good when things are automated.
I also don’t believe anything will ever be truly automated, or that it’s a good idea to try.
All that to say we don’t have to resort to an explanation of “managers must hate engineers” to understand why they would want to eliminate positions.
Programmers become obsolete when they stop evolving with technology
So far my experience with ai is it cannot evaluate the quality of the data it uses to any significant degree. As such it can summarize which is convenient for searching and give examples but ultimately you have to correct its mistakes and know enough to do so. There is some savings for a programmer in the sense you might be able to get some rough scaffolding and its a bit eaiser to identify relevant search links but I don’t see it replacing developers. It definitely allows one to do more though or even increase the quality. One really great thing it can do is auto commenting of the code which does not need as much improvement as actual code and makes it more likely for you to do the task (both because it does it and because it causes you to go. no don’t explain it like that). Is similarly helps with documentation. I doubt it could more than double productivity though. At least as how it stands now. Im not sure it can do much better without becoming general ai.
But then it only comments the ‘what’, it cannot possibly know the ‘why’. I know, some devs disagree on that, but personally, I would rather not have what-comments in my code.
I almost never put why. this cycles though hostnames and parses out blah blah blah. I guess I assume the why is self evident.
Fortran was supposed to replace computers (people). Then the computers became Fortran coders.
Zero-code has been about to make us all redundant for about five decades running so far.
“AI” is just another productivity tool, copilot let’s you remove some of the tedious patterned work you do, like writing all those asserts in Unit tests, it’s decent at guessing html structures too.
So basically it makes a developer faster, but then so do stuff like a good IDE, good plugins for your workflow, etc.
i saw somewhere an interesting take, even if AI could generate all the code for all the edge cases, you’d still need people to translate what business wants for the AI to understand properly.
Writing code is already a small part of a developers job, completely eliminating it won’t eliminate a developers job.
Even better quote, I love using this one.
“So, with AI writing code for us, all we need is an unambiguous way to define, what all our business requirements are for the software, what all the edge cases are, and how it should handle them.”
“We in the industry call that ‘code.’”
Yep, that’s the one I was paraphrasing, thanks for the exact quote
I mean, I’m paraphrasing, too.
That’s fun, I’m stealing that
Salesforce advertised “No more developers” for awhile in the mid 2010s. It was great fun trying to clean up the mess all the “not programmers” made of those systems. I really hate Salesforce. They must have some of the best sales people on the planet.
And now job boards are full of ads for ‘salesforce developers’ that pay ridiculous amounts because nobody really wants to work on salesforce.
I know I’ve chosen to take lower paid jobs rather than work on Salesforce.
Hook me up, I work in outsourcing for salesforce and my current job has failed to find me a client for a while now.
They keep telling me it’s hard to find s client
Rational Rose etc. could generate code from UML diagrams, then you “only” needed architects.
In reality it only gave a little help during the design phase, as soon as someone touches the generated code, you have to manually merge changes to UML.
I had to learn how to use that in the military, used to call it crashinal rose
It’s really weird, though, that nobody really created a language/tool to bridge these two world. It’s always just generating one representation from the other, mostly in a bad way.
I’d argue, that for many problems, a graphical view of the system can help reasoning. But there simply is nothing in that regard.
For OOP languages, you can definitely get IDE plugins, which create UML from code.
Personally, I’ve never found them useful, though, partially because our code was never OOP enough, e.g. we were using the actor pattern, or had important modules with functions, or had lots of small classes for handing data around etc…
But also because it just makes for bad architecture diagrams.
It has no sense of what’s important and what should be abstracted away. Or how to structure the diagram to make it readable, e.g. REST API at the top, database at the bottom.
What I also really don’t like about generated architecture diagrams in general (even when the contents are specified via e.g. PlantUML), is that things jump around every time you make a structural change. This means people looking at the diagram have no chance of learning what it looks like, so they can spot changes or know where to look for what they’re interested in.
If only we lived in a world so simple as to allow the whims of managers, customers and third parties to be completely definable in UML
So far one of the best use cases for AI in software engineering has been identifying idiots and sociopaths.
Joke’s on AI. It’s harder to stop us from outing ourselves.
Was before my time, but iirc C and other (then) high level languages were supposedly able to put programmers out of jobs.
SQL was explicitly designed to allow “normal humans” to query the database. Nowadays even “normal developers” aren’t able to use it properly.
It’s not happening, ever. Someone has to build the AI after all
Was thinking that may be why it’s taking so long. It’s akin to knowing you have to train your human replacement before you’re fired. You can’t possibly teach a program or human everything you know in a limited time; and a great many don’t want to do.
In Neolithic era I guess?
Dude I WISH an AI would do all the dumb AWS crap for me so that I could just hang out and build React frontends all day
The thing that made me laugh when I saw the article that OP mentions is that it was coming from AWS.
In my testing AWS’s Titan AI is the least useful for figuring out how to do things in AWS. It’s so terrible that Amazon just announced they’re using Claude for Alexa’s upcoming “AI” features.
I wish it could build front ends fornme so I could focus on database, backend and devops
The earliest I can think of (from personal experience) is 4GL languages; the early low-code platforms that first started to get traction in the early 80s. They wouldn’t have replaced programmers but some thought/hoped they would usher in an age of “low skill” programmers that companies could get away with paying minimum wage to.
Oh yeah, low-code platforms in general are pretty much always a thing, in every industry for various tasks.
I’ve also never seen any of them that were not horribly abused with ridiculous workarounds or custom code snippets, which effectively made them as complex as a real program.