Some percentage of developers before AI were unable to code fizzbuzz. Some significantly higher percentage of them are not able to do so now.

Saying there have always been bad developers doesn't change that there's a higher ratio of them now.

No stats to back this up. Just interviews I've done recently and historically.

This was nothing like investigative journalism; it's just LLM spew. It could have been written in a handful of paragraphs.

This isn't even well-slopped slop.

While subscriptions can net you ad-free content, they rarely let you have it tracking-free.

How is making it easier to pay (cash is not as commonly carried) a mark of a low-trust society? The important part here is that the roadside stand is still unattended - it's still up to the purchaser to purchase instead of stealing.

> At the end of the 90th and beginning of the 00th ("dotcom bubble") it was a common saying that if as a programmer, when you are 30 or 40, you don't have a very successful company (and thus basically set for life), you basically failed in life; exactly because "everybody" knew that programming is a "young man's game"

That seemed commonly held among folks participating in the dot-com bubble. Plenty of people had been doing it for decades even as the bubble was growing.

> Software engineers didn’t just disappear after age 40.

>> is rather a very recent phenomenon.

Not really. It's not that they disappeared, it's that they're a small fraction of the overall SWE population as a side-effect of how much that population has grown.

Because you don't have to coax, trick, or guide your compiler into doing the right thing.

Maybe C++ compilers would benefit from asking an LLM to rewrite their messages in a way that makes the point clearer...

But the GP stands.

When everything is generated on-demand - each exploit has to be discovered anew. No more conveniences like common libraries.

This is sarcasm, but it's probably also going to get sold as a feature at some point.

Even at 2x the tokens (max from that tweet), that makes them 40% of resources. Which is still only 40% of the resources.

Is it hypocrisy or learning? A more charitable take - it wasn't too many years ago that I also decried the need for all the collaboration. But as I advanced in my career, that worldview just didn't hold up. In this case, maybe the introduction of agentic coding has accelerated that learning because now 'regular' engineers are forced to take on coordination roles.

[With that said, the specific implementations of such collaboration are often still very painful and counterproductive...]