@[email protected] In my 35 years of programming I saw a lot of programmers who were worse than AI. Just cut, paste and copy without bothering to read the tech specs - perpetuating bad processes, design, sloppy code and no peer review. Sure QA passed it, if they tested everything it would take forever and nothing would ever get released. Besides they would proudly announce they were not ‘technical people’ even though they were working on a technical solution. So it went into production and then a disaster occurred I was called in to fix. The goal no defects, which is possible, and to not get overwhelmed by defects that grind progress to a complete halt while fixing them. The problems would often have been found with careful peer review or mock testing, sometimes not. As is AI code is better than that but still needs to be carefully designed and reviewed to be certain it is functioning as required. (1/2)
@[email protected] In my 35 years of programming I saw a lot of programmers who were worse than AI. Just cut, paste and copy without bothering to read the tech specs - perpetuating bad processes, design, sloppy code and no peer review. Sure QA passed it, if they tested everything it would take forever and nothing would ever get released. Besides they would proudly announce they were not ‘technical people’ even though they were working on a technical solution. So it went into production and then a disaster occurred I was called in to fix. The goal no defects, which is possible, and to not get overwhelmed by defects that grind progress to a complete halt while fixing them. The problems would often have been found with careful peer review or mock testing, sometimes not. As is AI code is better than that but still needs to be carefully designed and reviewed to be certain it is functioning as required. (1/2)