← Back to context

Comment by iLoveOncall

1 day ago

Okay so you have no names of experienced developers saying that coding agents are now useful when they weren't before. The only two you have actually saying that are... not working as software engineers.

9 comments

iLoveOncall

Reply
simonw  1 day ago

I don't think you are arguing in good faith here.

Max Woolf and DHH are clearly experienced developers who continue to write code for money.

Linus too - 11 commits to the kernel today! > While I was still a heavy AI skeptic [... through to ...] At this point I was firmly in the "no way I can go back" territory.

Steve Klabnik: https://steveklabnik.com/writing/getting-started-with-claude...

> 2025 was an interesting year in many ways. One way in which it was interesting for me is that I went from an AI hater to a pretty big user.

Nolan Lawson:

  • iLoveOncall  1 day ago

    > I don't think you are arguing in good faith here.

    Funny coming from a guy using Linus saying "There's no doubt AI is useful today" and interpreting that as "Yeah last year AI coding agents were garbage but now they're really useful".

    There's no denying AI is useful. I use AI, my project at work is all about using LLMs. They're even useful for coding, when I don't give a fuck about the quality of the output (which is almost never in a work scenario).

    But to claim that there has been some magical shift late last year is simply laughable. Anyone working as a software engineer and claims that is either lying to themselves or simply bad.

    Oh and don't try with the "you're not prompting it right".

    • simonw  1 day ago

      OK, you won't except Linus. How about DHH, Max, Nolan, Steve, Mitchell, and those five HN commenters?

      Or to strengthen the case for Linus, here he is on June 16th 2926 saying: https://youtu.be/YKkEe-PxW10?t=1687

      > we certainly saw more junk being generated by LLMs than we saw useful code up until the like early this year

      6 replies →