A new Coddy Developer Survey found that four in five developers, 80%, say their use of AI has felt more like a dependence than an advantage.
A new Coddy Developer Survey found that four in five developers, 80%, say their use of AI has felt more like a dependence than an advantage.
Wow this is all so true and well put.
Some colleagues are showing off 20k+ line change commits with no review. Whilst I’m at most doing 100 lines, usually 10 or less. I am reading each change. Every plan is read thoroughly with multiple iterations. If I don’t understand a part, I ask the AI to explain. It is surprisingly good at explaining the work. However I do find mistakes. I have it commit after every change after the tests work and I’d say a third of the commits are prefixed as "fix: ". I’m still on the fence about the whole thing but it feels good and weird and phoney at the same time.
I feel like: we’ve been developing these “best practices” of documented traceable requirements and design specs, repository storage of the whole change history, trace matrices showing test coverage / validation of all requirements and specs, code reviews, etc. etc. etc. and… for the most part… if you’ve got exclusively good responsible programmers on your team, most of that is a waste of time. But, when you have personnel turnover, people with … marginal skills, etc. those practices become much more important, even if they more than qunintuple the time required to do a thing, they enable projects to grow and be maintainable at much larger scale than if you don’t do them.
And along comes LLM agents, who strongly resemble those fresh hire colleagues of marginal skills, and they don’t complain about these “best practices” wasting time, and they’re so wicked fast that they can cut through the process that used to take 500% as long in 20% of the time instead… No, they’re not the greatest at getting things right on the first try, but they have been getting good at catching and correcting their own mistakes. And I can type messages like this one while they work on things that don’t need my attention…
Our primary use of the Cursor LLM agent is: code review. Refinement of the review to clear out the misconceptions - improvement of the pull request documentation to make intent more clear for everyone - not just the LLM agents.
We also have come (lately) to rely on it for writing unit tests. A year ago the LLM written tests tended to be ineffective, just “whitewash” coverage that didn’t really check the important aspects of the requirements. Today, they’re probably better than our Sr Sw Eng written unit tests, and you can crank the coverage arbitrarily high with very little effort.
One of my big criticisms of the .NET toolchain is that even simple changes can touch 47+ files, thousands of lines of code, and take hours just to have eyes on everything that changed, whereas a similar change in my Qt/C++ might be one line, or up to a dozen here a dozen there in maybe 6 files, but never the mess I’ve been seeing come out of .NET/WPF and friends for the past 20 years.