Summarizer

I don't know but to me this all sounds like the antithesis of what makes programming fun. You don't have productivity goals for hobby coding where you'd have to make the most of your half an hour -- that sounds too much like paid work to be fun. If you have a half an hour, you tinker for a half an hour and enjoy it. Then you continue when you have another half an hour again. (Or push into night because you can't make yourself stop.)

What you consider fun isn't universal. Some folks don't want to just tinker for half an hour, some folks enjoy getting a particular result that meets specific goals. Some folks don't find the mechanics of putting lines of code together as fun as what the code does when it runs. That might sound like paid work to you, but it can be gratifying for not-you.

This is just not true. I have wasted many hours looking for answers to hard-to-phrase questions and learned very little from the process. If an LLM can get me the same result in 30 seconds, it's very hard for me to see that as a bad thing. It just means I can spend more time thinking about the thing I want to be thinking about. I think to some extent people are valorizing suffering itself.

The difference is whether or not you find computers interesting and enjoy understanding how they work. For the people who just want to solve some problem unrelated to computers but require a computer for some part of the task, yes AI would be more “fun”.

I don’t find this to be true. I enjoy computers quite a bit. I enjoy the hardware, scaling problems, theory behind things, operating systems, networking, etc. Most of all I find what computers allow humanity to achieve extremely interesting and motivating. I call them the worlds most complicated robot. I don’t find coding overly fun in itself. What I find fun is the results I get when I program something that has the result I desire. Maybe that’s creating a service for friends to use, maybe it’s a personal IT project, maybe it’s having commercial quality WiFi at home everyone is amazed at when they visit, etc. Sometimes - even often - it’s the understanding that leads to pride in craftsmanship. But programming itself is just a chore for me to get done in service of whatever final outcome I’m attempting to achieve. Could be delivering bits on the internet for work, or automating OS installs to look at the 50 racks of servers humming away with cable porn level work done in the cabinets. I never enjoyed messing around with HTML at that much in the 90s. But I was motivated to learn it just enough to achieve the cool ideas I could come up with as a teenager and share them with my friends. I can appreciate clean maintainable code, which is the only real reason LLMs don’t scratch the itch as much as you’d expect for someone like me.

What I really enjoy in programming is algorithms and bit-twiddling and stuff that might be in Knuth or HAKMEM or whatever. That’s fun. I like writing Lisp especially, and doing cool, elegant functional programs. I don’t enjoy boilerplate. I don’t necessarily enjoy all of the error checking and polishing and minutia in turning algorithms into shippable products. I find AI can be immensely helpful in making real things for people to use, but I still enjoy doing what I find fun by hand.

See, I do though. I enjoy the act, the craft of programming. It's intrinsically fun for me, and has been for the 25 years I've been doing it at this point, and it still hasn't stopped being fun! Different strokes I guess

Oh I totally agree! I have a lot of fun chatting with friends/coworkers who are super into programming as an art and/or passion. I just was pushing back on the “you aren’t into computers if you don’t get intrinsic joy out of programming itself” bit.

> The difference is whether or not you find computers interesting and enjoy understanding how they work. I'm a stereotypical nerd, into learning for its own sake. I can explain computers from the quantum mechanics of band gaps in semiconductors up to fudging objects into C and the basics of operating systems with pre-emptive multitasking, virtual memory, and copy-on-write as they were c. 2004. Further up the stack it gets fuzzy (not that even these foundations are not; "basics" of OSes, I couldn't write one); e.g. SwiftUI is basically a magic box, and I find it a pain to work with as a result. LLM output is easier to understand than SwiftUI, even if the LLM itself has much weirder things going on inside.

Nope, but that was the example I had in mind when I chose my phrasing :) I think I can describe the principles at work with DNS, but not all of how IP packets are actually routed; the physics of beamforming and QAM, but none of the protocol of WiFi; the basics of error correction codes, but only the basics and they're probably out of date; the basic ideas used in private key crypto but not all of HTTPS; I'd have to look up the OSI 7-layer model to remember all the layers; I understand older UI systems (I've even written some from scratch), but I'm unsure how much of current web browsers are using system widgets vs. it all being styled HTML; interrupts as they used to be, but not necessarily as they still are; my knowledge of JavaScript is basic; and my total knowledge of how certificate signing works is the conceptual level of it being an application of public-private key cryptography. I have e.g. absolutely no idea why Chrome is famously a memory hog, and I've never learned how anything is scheduled between cores at the OS level.

I think a lot of us just discovered that the actual programming isn't the fun part for us. It turns out I don't like writing code as much as I thought. I like solving my problems. The activation energy for a lot of things was much higher than it is now. Now it's pretty low. That's great for me. Baby's sleeping, 3d printer is rolling, and I get to make a little bit of progress on something super quick. It's fantastic.

This 1000x! I had a bit of an identity crisis with AI first landed and started producing good code. “If I’m not the man who can type quickly, accurately, and build working programs… WHO AM I?” But as you pointed out, I quickly realized I was never that guy. I was the guy who made problems go away, usually with code. Now I can make so many problems go away, it feels like cheating. As it turns out, writing code isn’t super useful. It’s the application of the code, the judgement of which problems to solve and how to solve them, that truly mattered. And that sparks a LOT of joy.

Exactly. And I was never particularly good at coding, either. Pairings with Gemini to finally figure out how to decompile an old Java app so I can make little changes to my user profile and some action files? That was fun! And I was never going to be able to figure out how to do it on my own. I had tried!

Fair enough. But that particular could be anything that has been bothering you but you didn’t have the time or expertise to fix yourself. I wanted that fixed, and I had given up on ever seeing it fixed. Suddenly, in only two hours, I had it fixed. And I learned a lot in the process, too!

This. Busy-beavering is why the desktop Linux is where it is - rewriting stuff, making it "elegant" while breaking backwards compatibility - instead of focusing on the outcome.

It's just fun in a different way now. I've long had dozens of ideas for things I wanted to build, and never enough time to really even build one of them. Over the last few months, I've been able to crank out several of these projects to satisfactory results. The code is not a beautiful work of art like I would prefer it to be, and the fun part is no longer the actual code and working in the code base like it used to be. The fun part now is being able to have an app or tool that gets the job I needed done. These are rarely important jobs, just things that I want as a personal user. Some of them have been good enough that I shipped them for other users, but the vast majority are just things I use personally. Just yesterday for example, I used AI to build a GTK app that has a bunch of sports team related sound effects built into them. I could have coded this by hand in 45 minutes, but it only took 10 minutes with AI. That's not the best part though. The best part is that I was able to use AI to get it building into an app image in a container so I can distribute it to myself as a single static file that I can execute on any system I want. Dicking with builds and distribution was always the painful part and something that I never enjoyed, but without it, usage is a pain. I've even gone back to projects I built a decade ago or more and got them building against modern libraries and distributed as RPMs or app images that I can trivially install on all of my systems. The joy is now in the results rather than the process, but it is joy nonetheless.

I think, for a lot of people, solving the problem was always the fun part. There is immense pleasure in a nice piece of code - something that is elegant, clever and simple at the same time. Grinding out code to get something finished - less fun…

It depends. Sometimes they joy is in discovering what problem you are solving, by exploring the space of possibilities on features and workflows on a domain. For that, having elegant and simple software is not needed; getting features fast to try out how they work is the basis of the pleasure, so having to write every detail by hand reduces the fun.

Sounds like someone who enjoys listening to music but not composing or performing music.

Or maybe someone DJing instead of creating music from scratch.

Or someone who enjoys playing music but not building their own instrument from scratch.

I think this is showing the difference between people who like to /make/ things and those that like to make /things/. People that write software because they see a solution for a problem that can be fixed with software seem to benefit the most of LLM technology. It's almost the inverse for the people that write software because they like the process of writing software.

Surely there has to be some level of "getting stuff done"/"achieving a goal" when /making/ things, otherwise you'd be foregoing for-loops because writing each iteration manually is more fun.

I think you misunderstand the perspective of someone who likes writing code. It's not the pressing of keys on the keyboard. It's figuring out which keys to press. Setting aside for the moment that most loops have a dynamic iteration count, typing out the second loop body is not fun if it's the same as the first. I do code golf for fun. My favorite kind of code to write is code I'll never have to support. LLMs are not sparking joy. I wish I was old enough to retire.

I have a 10-year-old side project that I've dumped tens of thousands of hours into. "Ship the game" was an explicit non -goal of the project for the vast majority of that time. Sometimes, the journey is the destination.

And sometimes the destination is the destination and the journey is a slog.

I mean, sure. I was just pointing out to the commentor that sometimes "getting stuff done" isn't the point.

Sure, but, in the real world, for the software to deliver a solution, it doesn't really matter if something is modelled in beautiful objects and concise packages, or if it's written in one big method. So for those that are more on the making /things/ side of the spectrum, I guess they wouldn't care if the LLM outputs code that has each iteration written separately. It's just that if you really like to work on your craftsmanship, you spend most of the time rewriting/remodelling because that's where the fun is if you're more on the /making/ things side of the spectrum, and LLMs don't really assist in that part (yet?). Maybe LLMs could be used to discuss ways to model a problem space?

I like both the process and the product, and I like using LLMs. You can use LLMs in whatever way works for you. Objections like the ones in this thread seem to assume that the LLM determines the process, but that’s not true at present. Perhaps they’re worrying about what might happen in future, but more likely they’re just resisting change in the usual way of inventing objections against something they haven’t seriously tried. These objections serve more as emotional justifications to avoid changing, than rational positions.

As I've gotten more experience I've tended to find more fun in tinkering with architectures than tinkering with code. I'm currently working on making a secure zero-trust bare metal kubernetes deployment that relies on an immutable UKI and TPM remote attestation. I'm making heavy use of LLMs for the different implementation details as I experiment with the architecture. As far as I know, to the extent I'm doing anything novel, it's because it's not a reasonable approach for engineering reasons even if it technically works, but I'm learning a lot about how TPMs work and the boot process and the kernel. I still enjoy writing code as well, but I see them as separate hobbies. LLMs can take my hand-optimized assembly drag racing or the joy of writing a well-crafted library from my cold dead hands, but that's not always what I'm trying to do and I'll gladly have an LLM write my OCI layout directory to CPIO helper or my Bazel rule for putting together a configuration file and building the kernel so that I can spend my time thinking about how the big pieces fit together and how I want to handle trust roots and cold starts.

So much this. The act of having the agent create a research report first, a detailed plan second, then maybe implement it is itself fun and enjoyable. The implementation is the tedious part these days, the pie in the sky research and planning is the fun part and the agent is a font of knowledge especially when it comes to integrating 3 or 4 languages together.

Something happened to me a few years ago. I used to write code professionally and contribute to open source a lot. I was freelancing on other people's projects and contributing to mature projects so I was doing hard work, mostly at a low level (I mean algorithms, performance fixes, small new features, rather than high level project architecture). I was working on an open source contribution for a few days. Something that I struggled with, but I enjoyed the challenge and learned a lot from it. As it happened someone else submitted a PR fixing the same issue around the same time. I wasn't bothered if mine got picked or not, it happens. But I remember looking at how similar both of our contributions were and feeling like we were using our brains as computers, just crunching algorithms and pumping in knowledge to create some technical code that was (at the time) impossible for a computer to create. This stayed with me for a while and I decided that doing this technical algorithm crunching wasn't the best use of my human brain. I was making myself interchangeable with all the other human (and now AI) code crunchers. I should move on to a higher level, either architectural or management. This was a big deal for me because I did love (and still do) deeply understanding algorithms and mathematics. I was extremely fortunate with timing as it was just around one year before AI coding became mainstream but early enough that it wasn't a factor in this shift. Now an AI could probably churn out a decent version of that algorithm in a few minutes. I did move on to open my own business with my partner and haven't written much code in a few years. And when I do now I appreciate that I can focus on the high level stuff and create something that my business needs in a few hours without exhausting myself on low level algorithm crunching. This isn't meant to put down the enjoyment of writing code for code's sake. I still do appreciate well written code and the craft that goes into it. I'm just documenting my personal shift and noting that enjoyment can be found on both sides.

There are many people who enjoy spending an afternoon working on a classic car. There are also many people who enjoy spending an afternoon driving a classic car. Sometimes there are people who enjoy both. Sometimes there are people that really like driving but not the tinkering and some who are the opposite.

I yearn for the mindset where I actively choose to accomplish comparatively little in the brief spells I have to myself, and remain motivated. Part of what makes programming fun for me is actually achieving something. Which is not to say you have to use AI to be productive, or that you aren't achieving anything, but this is not the antithesis of what makes programming fun, only what makes it fun for you.

Ultimately it's up to the user to decide what to do with his time ; it's still a good bargain that leaves a lot of sovereignty to the user. I like to code a little too much ; got into deep tech to capacities I couldn't imagine before - but at some point you hit rock bottom and you gotta ship something that makes sense. I'm like a really technical "predator" - in a sense where to be honest with myself - it has almost become some way of consumption rather than pure problem solving. For very passionate people it can be difficult to be draw the line between pleasure and work - especially given that we just do what we like in the first place - so all that time feel robbed from us - and from the standpoint of "shipper" who didn't care about it in the first place it feels like freedom. But I'd argue that if anyone wants to jump into technical stuff ; it has never been so openly accessible - you could join some niche slack where some competent programmers were doing great stuff. Today a solo junior can ship you a key-val that is going to be fighting redis in benchmarks. It really is not a time to slack down in my opinion - everything feels already existing and mostly already dealt with. But again - for those who are frustrated with the status-quo ; they will always find something to do. I get you however that this has created a very different space where past acquired skill-sets don't necessarily translate as well today - maybe it's just going to be different to find it's space than it was 10 years ago. I like that the cards have be re-dealt though - it's arguably way more open than the stack-overflow era and pre-ai where knowledge was much more difficult to create.

If you only get one or two half-hours a week it's probably more fun to use those to build working software than it is to inch forward on a project that won't do anything interesting for several more months.

For me it automates a lot of the boilerplate that usually bogs me down on side projects. I cal spin up all of the stuff I hate doing quickly and then fiddle with the interesting parts inside of a working scaffold of code. I recently did this with an elixir wrapper around some Erlang OTP code o wanted to use. Figuring out how to clue together all of the parts that touched the Erlang and tracing all of the arguments through old OTP code would have absolutely stopped me from bothering with this in the past. Instead I’m having fun playing with the interface of my tool in ways that matter for my use case.

LLMs are really showing how different programmers are from one another i am in your camp, i get 0 satisfaction out of seeing something appear on the screen which i don't deeply understand i want to feel the computer as i type, i've recently been toying with turning off syntax highlighting and LSPs (not for everyone), and i am surprised at the lack of distractions and feeling of craft and joy it brings me

I enjoy coding for the ability to turn ideas into software. Seeing more rapid feature development, and also more rapid code cleanup and project architecture cleanup is what makes AI assisted coding enjoyable to me

> There are two sorts of projects (or in general, people): artisans, and entrepreneurs. The latter see code as a means to an end, possibly monetized, and the former see code as the end in itself. Me from 9 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46391392#46398917

I have nearly two decades of programming experience which is mostly server side. The other day I wanted a quick desktop (Linux) program to chat with an LLM. Found out about Viciane launcher, then chalked out an extension in react (which I have never used) to chat with an LLM using OpenAI compatible API. Antigravity wrote a bare minimum working extension in a single prompt. I didn't even need to research how to write an extension for an app released only three to five months ago. I then used AI assistance to add more features and polish the UI. This was a fun weekend but I would have procrastinated forever without a coding agent.

Is the manual coding part of programming still fun or not? We have a lot of opinions on either side here. I think the classic division of problems being solved might, for most people, solve this seeming contradiction. For every problem, X% is solving the necessary complexity of the problem. Taming the original problem, in relation to what computers are capable of doing. With the potential of some relevant well implemented libraries or API’s helping to close that gap. Work in that scenario rarely feels like wasted time. But in reality, there is almost always another problem we have to solve, the Y%=(1-X) of the work required for an actual solution that involves wrangling with mismatches in available tools from the problem being solved. This can be relatively benign, just introducing some extra cute little puzzles, that make our brains feel smart as we successfully win wack-a-mole. A side game that can even be refreshing. Or, the stack of tools, and their quirks, that we need to use can be an unbounded (even compounding) generative system of pervasive mismatches and pernicious non-obvious, not immediately recognizable, trenches we must a 1000 little bridges, and maybe a few historic bridges, just to create a path back to the original problem. And it is often evident that all this work is an artifact of 1000 less than perfect choices by others. (No judgement, just a fact of tool creation having its own difficulties.) That stuff can become energy draining to say the list. I think high X problems are fun to solve. Most of our work goes into solving the original problem. Even finding out it was more complex than we thought feels like meaningful drama and increase the joy of resolving. High Y problems involve vast amounts of glue code, library wrappers with exception handling, the list in any code base can be significant. Even overwhelm the actual problem solving code. And all those mismatches often hold us back, to where our final solution inevitable has problems in situations we hope never happen, until we can come back for round N+1, for unbounded N. Any help from AI for the latter is a huge win. Those are not “real” problems. As tool stack change, nobody will port Y-type solutions forward. (I tell myself so I can sleep at night). So that’s it. We are all different. But what type of acceleration AI gives us on type-Y problems is most likely to feel great. Enabling. Letting us harder on things that are more important and lasting. And where AI is less of a boost, but still a potentially welcome one, as an assistant.

I think it just depends on the person or the type of project. If I'm learning something or building a hobby project, I'll usually just use an autocomplete agent and leave Claude Code at work. On the other hand, if I want to build something that I actually need, I may lean on AI assistants more because I'm more interested in the end product. There are certain tasks as well that I just don't need to do by hand, like typing an existing SQL schema into an ORM's DSL.

Some people build because they enjoy the mechanics. Others build because they want to use the end product. That camp will get from A to B much more easily with AI, because for them it was never about the craft. And that's more than OK.

I too have found this. However, I absolutely love being able to mock up a larger idea in 30 minutes to assess feasibility as a proof of concept before I sink a few hours into it.

I derive the majority of my hobby satisfaction from getting stuff done, not enjoying the process of crafting software. We probably enjoy quite different aspects of tinkering! LLMs make me have so much more fun.

I enjoy noodling around with pointers and unsafe code in Rust. Claude wrote all the documentation, to Rust standards, with nice examples for every method. I decided to write an app in Rust with a React UI, and Claude wrote almost all the typescript for me. So I’ve used Claude at both ends of the spectrum. I had way more fun in every situation. AI is, fortunately, very bad at the things I find fun, at least for now, and very good at the things I find booooring (read in Scot Pilgrim voice).

I think there can be other equally valid perspectives than your own. Some people have goals of actually finishing a project instead of just "tinkering"... and that's ok. Some say it might even be necessary.

Having AI working with and for me is hugely exciting. My creativity is not something an AI can outmode. It will augment it. Right now ideas are cheap, implementation is expensive. Soon, ideas will be more valuable and implementation will be cheap. The economy is not zero sum nor is creativity.

But the world is better of with the scribes unemployed: ideas get to spread, more people can educate themselves through printed books. Maybe the world is better off with fewer coders, as more software ideas can materialize into working software faster?

It all comes back to "Do more because of AI" rather than "Do less because of AI". Getting back into coding is doing more. Updating an old project to the latest libraries is doing more. It often feels ambiguous. Shipping a buggy, vibe-coded MVP might be doing less. But getting customer feedback on day one from a real tangible product can allow you to build a richer and deeper experience through fast iteration. Just make sure we're doing more, not less, and AI is a wonderful step forward.

I was very anti AI (mainly because I am scared that I'll take my job). I did a side project that would have took me weeks in just two days. I deployed it. It's there, waiting for customers now. I felt in love with the process to be honest. I complained my wife yesterday: "my only problem now is that I don't have enough time and money to pay all the servers", because it opened to me the opportunities to develop and deploy a lot of new ideas.

Only it’s a bit like me getting back into cooking because I described the dish I want to a trainee cook.

The head chefs at most restaurants delegate the majority of details of dishes to their kitchen staff, then critique and refine.

This approach seems to have worked out for both Warhol and Chihuly.

As long as you get the dish you want when before you couldn’t have it — who cares?

My expectations don’t change whether or not I’m using AI, and neither do my standards. Whether or not you use my software is up to you.

So you're saying that if you go to any famous restaurant and the famous face of the restaurant isn't personally preparing your dinner with their hands and singular attention, you are disappointed. Got it.

Are you even cooking if you did not collect your own ingredients and forge your own tools??

Isn't that still considered cooking? If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did cook it.

Work harder! Now I’m a life coach because I’m responsible for your promotion.

Ok, maybe my analogy wasn't the best. But the point I was trying to make is that using AI tools to write code doesn't meant you didn't write the code.

I would argue that you technically did not cook it yourself - you are however responsible for having cooked it. You directed the cooking.

> If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did "cook" it. The person who actually cooked it cooked it. Being the "catalyst" doesn't make you the creator, nor does it mean you get to claim that you did the work. Otherwise you could say you "cooked a meal" every time you went to MacDonald's.

They're not moving back into development. They're adopting a new approach of producing software, which has nothing to do with the work that software developers do. It's likely that they "left" the field because they were more interested in other roles, which is fine. So now that we have tools that promise to offload the work a software developer does, there are more people interested in simply producing software, and skipping all of that "busy work". The idea that this is the same as software development is akin to thinking that assembling IKEA furniture makes you a carpenter.

That IKEA analogy is pretty good, because plenty of people use IKEA furniture to solve the "I need a bookshelf" problem - and often enjoy the process - without feeling like they should call themselves a carpenter. I bet there are professional carpenters out there who occasionally assemble an IKEA bookshelf because they need something quick and don't want to spend hours building one themselves from scratch.

It's called being a systems analyst or product manager. Upskill into these roles (while still accepting individual contributor pay) or get left behind.

I'm sorry, "upskill"? The roles you mentioned don't require any more advanced skills than those required for software development—just a different set of skills. And an IC is not "left behind" if those roles don't interest them. What a ridiculous thing to say. A systems analyst or product manager is not a natural progression for someone who enjoys software development.

There's been so much pressure to use AI at work. My codebase is a zen garden I've been raking for 6 years. I have concerns about what's going to happen after a few months of "we're using AI cause they told us to."

That must be so satisfying. I’ve heard the phrase “code farming” before, but I like the zen garden analogy. If the future is indeed AI, and I’m certainly hearing a lot of people using it extensively, then I think there has to be a mindset shift. Our job will change from craft to damage limitation. Our goal will be to manage a manic junior developer who produces a mixture of good code and slop without architectural level reasoning. Code will rot fast and correctness will hinge on testing as much as you can. It seems like a horrible future. However, it does seem to me that given decades we were unable to build good development practices. Our tooling is terrible. Most of our languages are terrible. Our solution was to let inexperienced devs create languages with all the same flaws, repeating the same mistakes. Web dev is a great example of inefficient software dev that has held the world to ransom. Maybe AI slop is payback for software developers.

For most of my AI uses, I already have an implementation in mind. The prompt is small enough that most of the time, the agent would get it 90% there. In a way, it's basically an advanced autocomplete. I think this is quite nice cause it doesn't feel like code review. It's more of a: did it do it? Yes? Great. Somewhat? Good enough, i can work from there. And when it doesn't work, I just scrap that and re-prompt or implement it manually. But I do agree with what you say. When someone uses AI without making the code their own, it's a nightmare. I've had to review some PRs where I feel like I'm prompting AI rather than an engineer. I did wonder if they simply put my reviews directly to some agent...

Agreed. I've settled on writing the code myself and having AI do the first pass review.

Don't you enjoy the fact that some staff is actually _done_?

It's amazing to be able to try a bunch of ideas with very minimal cost. That being said, AI code assistants don't have eyeballs and they often make things that don't look very good. Craft, polish and judgement still matter.

I find they can make some things look objectively "good", but they just look generic and it feels very easy to spot a site that was made without the vision, polish and judgement. You can get LLMs to create some truly unique sites, but it takes a lot more work than a few prompts.

Last paragraph resonated so deeply with me. Especially this: ```It’s also not the typing of code that I really enjoy, nor is it the syntax or structure or boilerplate that’s required to build anything. It’s the fact you get to build something out of nothing, writing code was just how you got there. And with today’s tooling, that saves a ton of time.``` I never really related with folks that code for beauty or are put off by how AI does the actual coding. The beauty is actually creating something, solving real problems, shipping, and (hopfully) winning. It might be cliche, but it is incredibly true for me to say that using AI feels like a superpower.

The people who love writing code were the ones who created the languages and frameworks that make it even possible for an LLM to cobble something together for you. There is tons of satsifaction in actually creating nuts and bolts frameworks. After you encounter difficulties in creating a real world product you see the need for tools to solve those problems, so crafting those tools and then using them does feel like winning and shipping and solving real problems.

AI makes finishing projects easier. But I would steer away from starting them. In order for me to be comfortable with a code base and consider it mine I need to have written the foundation, not merely reviewed in. Once the pillars are there, LLMs do make further development faster and I can concentrate on fun details (like tinkering with CSS or thinking about some very specific details).

Maybe it's just me, but the idea that the average web project out there is a complicated mess and thank God we have AI so we can finally think about the things that matter while AI deals with the mess... it makes me sad.

Maybe its just me but I enjoy learning how all these systems work. Vibe Coding and LLMs basically take that away from me, so I dont think ill ever be as hyped for AI as other coders

To me, what sucks the most about programming is dealing with ecosystem issues. You want to write a little tool for personal use, but NPM starts acting out. Then you need to do something in java, which you don't use very often, and you get a giant maven error stack trace which you now need to try to understand. All of this frustration is gone since I use AI and I can focus solely on the thing I'm trying to accomplish.

No. My point is more nuanced than that. All of the things in the article have value to someone, but their value to you is defined in terms of how much better they make your product. If you spend so much time on the cumulation of product-adjacent activities that you don't make a good product, then their cumulative value to you was negative. But I do, personally, love a good build system. The value is extremely high and it only takes 10 minutes to set one up.

I kinda feel the same way, don't get me wrong, I'm a developer at soul level, I absolutely love programming, but I love more getting shit done, automating things, taking the human out of the equation and putting the computer to do it, AI lets me do that. I work in cybersecurity as a WAF admin, my job is 100% that, but I'm also the only developer so anything that needs to be scripted or developed I get to do it. One week I created 4 different scripts with Gemini Canvas to automate some tedious work, it took my I don't know, 3 hours? Instead of 1 or 2 weeks? Yeah sign me in.

Yeah, I had same experience, these days I just vibed some stuff in web, i do think vibe frontend/web is great for backend developer. Checkout the one just finished yesterday. https://slsqp-vis.shuo23333.app/hs_all_cases_viz , a slsqp solver visualization.

I've tried vibe coding and hate it. I guess it's okay for people who are only interested in the result, but for me it takes all the fun out of programming. It doesn't feel like it has anything to do with programming at all. I will continue to "vibe code" out of necessity - saving time and achieving more than I can on my own. But I cannot possibly understand how someone could consider it fun.

One thing is true: now I go to the bar with the other guys in the group, drink whatever and let Claude or Codex do the work while I supervise, then merge PR in the morning... I wish I was kidding, but for non critical projects this is now a reality

I work at most 3-4 hours a day, and my work is prompting Cursor. Certainly an improvement over suffering 8 hours a day, but still not quite what I'm looking for.

it is fun again because we can remove ourselves completely from it? seems like web enthusiast are always the first to drop ship huh. "llms good because I no longer have to interface with this steaming pile of shit that web development has become", not because the web ecosystem has improved by any metric.

AI has increased my productivity in dealing with side tasks in languages/frameworks I'm not familiar with. But it has not made development fun. To the contrary, I enjoy writing code, not reviewing code.

I don't bike for exercise. I bike to get where I'm going with the least amount of friction. Different tools for different jobs. Also: I think we can agree that Ripley was getting a good workout.

Web development may be fun again but you aren’t developing. You order and became a customer. Maybe you can distinguish good code from bad code but how long will you check it? Auditing wasn’t the fun part ever. And I bet at some point you will recognize a missing feeling of accomplishment because you didn’t figure out the how, you just ordered the what. We wouldn’t call someone a painter who let AI do the painting.

To me it seems like for OP development was a means towards an end. The act to developing software as a craft does not seem to be of importance to him while the output is. His post is full of references to productivity and lacking references of improving his skills (as opposed to using LLMs as a crutch) or getting better at writing software. I bet OP would be equally happy if he had AGI that would write everything for him. For many in HN, programming is an end in itself and they would not be happy giving that up just because it makes you finish quicker.

This is probably the best post i've seen about the whole LLM / vibe coding space at least in relation to web dev. Indeed, as the author states, the code / agent often needs some coralling, but if you know all the gotchyas / things to look for, you can focus 100% on the creativity part! Been loving it as well.

AI is doing the chores while we paint.

Except to me it feels more like AI is painting while I have to do the chores

It’s because business demand speed and shipping over other concerns. We had to fight hard for proper quality controls in the face of the LLM coding assistance boom where I work. These are great tools but they have limits and can lead to poor engineering hygiene quite quickly. It took a major issue being attributed to having too much trust in these tools before we were able to enforce better hygiene with them

Yeah. I love programming. I even love the business side where you solve real problems for people. What I don't love is the constant pressure to just deliver faster and faster. So forcing these chatbots on us fill a need for the CEOs and manager types that just want to DELIVER DELIVER DELIVER, but the benefit for the people that are forced to use them are marginal at best. There are some valid use cases for LLM-based tools, but businesses mostly aren't interested in those because it doesn't make line go up. Streamlining operations? Nah. Shove a Chatbot where it doesn't belong so you can try to get a billion dollar investment? NOW WE ARE COOKING C-suites and managers don't give a shit about quality unless they feel the pain. That's the most important thing I've learned. If you can find a way to push the pain up to the people that make the decisions, the more likely they are incentivised to improve it. It doesn't matter if you see a problem that takes 2 days to fix coming a year away - they do not care until the application crashes because of it. Office politics sucks.

Customers don't buy software based on quality first, they buy on features. Until customers in mass, or regulations demand quality, money will be made on deliveries. If your lucky and can program how you want and take the time you need, then you can focus on the attributes you feel best about.

If you have customers that will put up with things being slow as molasses and crashing al the time, well….can you send some my way because mine won’t STFU about it.

You've made a categorical mistake here... I stated customers don't buy software based on performance. They just bitch about the performance of the flashy software they buy... Then get tired of it, and move on to some other flashy software with suck performance never learning their lesson.

I don't get it. What part of the process do you enjoy? Do you also enjoy hiring a taskrabbit to go hiking for you, taking photos along the way?

I’m just looking to make pizza not smelt the ore for the oven I’m going to cook it in.

Why make pizza when you can order it? As far as I can tell, there's not much enjoyment of making being had. Enjoying having is fine too, but let's at least be honest about it. I enjoy looking at photos people took on hikes, but I don't call it hiking.

Is it hiking if I bought my boots on amazon?

Not if you sit at home wearing boots and looking at photos of mountains. If you want to have boots, that's cool. But is replacing walking with ordering boots and photos making hiking fun again? Or were you only interested in the photos anyway? What part of the process of hiking do you enjoy? And why is it so hard to hear what part of the process of programming people enjoy?

But you’d agree it’s still hiking even if I didn’t tan the leather for the boots myself.

Yes, if you go out and walk. The same way I would agree it was programming if you designed the algorithms yourself.

This is just obtuse. Some folks have fun building their own pizza oven, curing & slicing their own meat, and mixing their own dough. Some folks like to buy mostly pre-made stuff and just play with a few special ingredients. Some folks want to make 5 different pizzas with different flavors. Some folks just order a pizza. Some folks walk out of their house and start hiking. Some folks drive somewhere and then start walking. Some folks take photos from the car. Some folks take a roadtrip. All of these things ask for different effort & commitment with different experiences & results as the payoff. At least be honest about that.

Like, fine, here's a personal example: I wanted to build a system that posts web links I share to a bot account on the fediverse. That seemed like a fun result to me. I wanted to self-host the links, so I installed Linkding. (I didn't write Linkding.) For the fediverse bot, I installed gotosocial as the service host (I didn't write gotosocial.) From there, a cronjob running a small program using Linkding and gotosocial APIs could do the trick. Decided to do it in golang, because the standalone binaries are easy to deploy. Writing that small program didn't seem like fun - I've already played with those APIs and golang. What I wanted, for my enjoyment, was the completed system. So, I took 10 minutes to write out a quick spec for the program and what I wanted it to do. I loaded that up as context for Claude Code along with some pointers for building CLI apps in golang. I let it rip and, in about 20 minutes, Claude produced a functional tool. It also wrote a decent README based on my original prose. I reviewed the code, did some testing, made some tweaks, called it done. My bookmarks are now regularly posted to a bot account on the fediverse. This is an enjoyable outcome for me - and I didn't have to type every line of code myself. For bonus points, I also had Claude Code gin up some GitHub Actions workflows to lint, test, build, and release multi-platform binaries for this tool. I've done these things before, but they're tedious. More enjoyable to have the resulting automations than to build them. And now I have them: I can make tweaks to this tool and get builds just through the GitHub web UI. I've since repeated this pattern with a handful of other small personal tools. In each case, I wanted the tool and the utility it offered. I didn't care about the process of writing the code. It's working pretty well for me.

Having a product that works is what these people enjoy

Seeing the output I want when I describe it, and making changes to get to the vision in my mind. I don't have aphantasia so maybe it's different for those who do, but I can literally see the UI of the app I want to build and of course I can build it by writing code manually too, but I can make it exist much faster with an LLM than without.

100% the opposite. LLMs lack high level creativity, wisdom and taste. Being a generalist is how you build these. For example, there's a common core to music, art, food, writing, etc that you don't see until you've gotten good at 3+ aesthetic fields. There are common patterns in different academic disciplines and activities that can supercharge your priors and help you make better decisions. LLMs can "see" these these connections if explicitly prompted with domains and details, but they don't seem to reason with them in mind or lean on them by default. On the other hand, LLMs are being aggressively RL'd by the top 10% of various fields, so single field expertise by some of the best in the world is 100% baked in and the default.

Finally we can get rid of those insufferable nerds. /s

What is fun? Prompting?