I’m not sure I’d call it a debate. I think it’s too asymmetric for that.
On one side you have significant evidence that workable high-quality systems can be efficiently created by AI agents driven by disciplined humans who don’t spend a lot of time reading the code.
On the other side you have emotional predictions of the doom and disaster that will be caused by AI slop; but no evidence contradicting the above.
It is certainly true that humans can drive agents to create horrible messes. It’s also certainly true that humans can create horrible messes all by themselves.
Disciplined humans create good systems, regardless of whether they use agents or not. Those who use agents are simply more productive.
IMHO.
There is clear evidence that the nature of software development is changing. I use @claudeai daily, and I experience those changes myself first hand.
However.
To claim that this is the “end of programming” based on your experience in migrating an established system from one programming language to another wherein there was no meaningful change in functionality and no reported architectural change is complete overreach.
The world of computing is far grander than your world, Paul. It may be the end of programming for you, perhaps, but not for millions of others.
Yok böyle bir şey.
Mülakat iki tarafın uygunluğuna göre belirlenir. Adayın herhangi bir mülakat saatini tercih etmesi ve bu tercihini bildirmesi zayıflık göstergesi değildir. Zaten belirlediği saat şirket için uygun değilse o da alternatifler söyler. Böyle Uydurma meşgul etmeyin. Bunlarla kafa yoracağınıza zaman harcayacağınıza o zaman mülakata gideceğiniz şirketi araştırın, internet sitesinden kurumsal değerleri öğrenin, şirketin faaliyet alanları konusunda detaylı bilgi edinin.
A very sound and thoughtful article, Bilgin.
As for building a theory of a codebase, I like to think of it this way: every such theory serves to represent the set of significant design decisions that shape the form and function of a system.
Simply put, this is the system's architecture.
In any software-intensive system, while the code is the truth and is therefore the ultimate manifestation of all such decisions, there is a loss of information from human design making to code and therefore one cannot fully capture those decisions, their context, and their rationale. Documentation sometimes fills the gap, but in practice, these are things that become part of the project's institutional memory. For complex systems with low turnover, those decisions the very atmosphere which all the developers breathe and so it is rarely spoken of, it just is. For complex systems with high turnover, this is why so-called elders are revered and consulted. Local work can proceed with vibrant pace by small teams because their work in general will not disturb the load-bearing decisions, decisions that are so very much baked in to the codebase. For these souls, a theory of the codebase is not particularly relevant, for they can reach the next mountain without needing to know about the tectonic plates that formed the peaks in the first place. Now, mind you, in the fullness of time, architectural drift will happen: technology changes, requirements change, the market market changes, and so there will come a time of reckoning. But if you are in a high turnover place, well, that's not your problem, it's a problem for someone else (and honestly, that's ok).
I will also observe that there's another way to group the developers you see vocal on social media. Many are those seem to be engaged in the front end of web-centric systems with apps that are not meant to be enduring. There's another equally valid group of souls who I find unrepresented here, people who build systems such that if they fail, people die, organizations crumble, and civilizations are in peril. For this latter group, having a theory of the code base is far more important.
But this is the wonderful thing about software: the field is so broad, their domains are so varied, such that its hard to generalize and it is certainly dangerous to generalize based on heat and light from social media.
By way of full disclosure, I will report that @claudeai is my go to coding partner: I use it daily on several programming projects.
AI agents can write code many times faster than a human. What this means is that you, the programmer, have a large amount of time to use those agents to write unit tests, to write acceptance, tests, to write property tests, to torture test, to mutate test, to QA test, and to otherwise ensure that the code meets its functional and quality requirements. And even after spending all that time, you will still be many times more productive than a human programmer, and the result will be better.
I’m significantly older than you. I started coding in the late 60s. My current strategy is to not read any of the code written by my agents. That’s the only way I can take advantage of their productivity. What I do instead is to surround the agents with extreme constraints. Unit tests, gherkin tests, QA procedures, quality metrics, mutation testing, test coverage, and a plethora of others. In the end, I have very high confidence in the code they produce because they’ve had to run the gauntlet of all of my constraints and tests.
🎓 Tanıtım Günleri
📅 20 Temmuz – 7 Ağustos 2026
🕘09:00-18:00
📍Etimesgut Kampüsü
🚀 Gözü yükseklerde olan tüm aday öğrencileri kampüsümüze bekliyoruz!
@rahmi_er#geleceğekanataç
lol "literally on the verge" sounds like something we've been hearing about ai replacing jobs for the past 5 years and yet here we are still debugging infinite loops at 2am. claude can write decent boilerplate code and handle some routine tasks, but calling it "fully autonomous software engineers" is kinda like saying a calculator is on the verge of being a mathematician because it can do arithmetic.
meanwhile the real bottleneck in software development isn't writing code - it's understanding messy business requirements, navigating legacy systems, and making architectural decisions that won't bite you 6 months later. stop hyping tools as job replacements when they're clearly productivity enhancers at best.
Trabzonsporun eksik kalması 2 takımın da oyun planını https://t.co/WB5BVOHAb5şiktaş 2.yarıyı çöpe attı.İmmobilenin çekilmesi penaltıydı ama Rafa Silvanın aşil tendonuna yapılan faule sarı bile veremeyen (var sayesinde kırmızı verdi)Ali Şansalan uzatmaları da eksik oynattı
Çoğunluk kararı ile 20-21 Nisan Cumartesi Pazar Cafe ve Restaurantlara gitmiyoruz
Fırsatçılığa son vermek için herkesi katılmaya davet ediyoruz
#fahişyemeğeBOYKOT
ps. Lütfen bu görseli bolca kullanalım
Bu Cafe-Restaurant boykot duyurusunu tekrarlamak istiyorum
Hep beraber bir hafta sonu belirleyip hiç bir cafe-restaurant'a gitmeyerek başlayabiliriz
Hatta, doğru düzgün fiyatlar uyguladıklarına inanana kadar bunu her hafta sonu tekrarlayabiliriz
Bize sattıkları, kalitesi de iyice bozulmuş, yemeklerin fiyatı normal bir kâr ile açıklanamaz
Asla kabul etmiyorum
Hep beraber bir tarih belirleyelim mi, ne dersiniz?
Eğer, gerektiği kadar istek varsa bir anket düzenleyip tarihi kararlaştırabiliriz
Artık, itiraz etmeye başlayalım, birlik olursak kimse karşı koyamaz
Koordinasyonunun başındayım ve sosyal medyaya bakamıyorum bile.
Aranızda beni seven varsa gerçekten varsa bir twit istiyorum.
Çalışmalarımıza sekte vurmak isteyenlere inat!
Afad da bizim Ahbap da!
Tek cümle istiyorum!
Afad da bizim Ahbap da!
Twitter neden açık olmalı biliyor musunuz ey yetkililer!
Bakın normalde 111,000 beğenini görüntülenmesi 2-3 milyondur.
Sadece şu twit ne canlar kurtardı.
Herkes twitin altına 10 kez baktı.
İnsanlar yakınları için yazdı.
Yakında olan gönüllüler bu twitlere bakarak destek verdiler
Junior developers love magic. Seniors hate magic. And the reason seniors hate magic is that they know, from experience, that magic (things they don't understand) eventually bite in the ass.