upvote
Because it's mostly a load of crap.

Most of these reusable, automated workflows sound really cool in theory, but in practice either they require a lot of customization (not really reusable) or a lot of babysitting (not really automated).

AI has improved my productivity significantly, I'm not a hater, but we also have to be honest about its (current) limitations. The whole "software factory" thing is just a pipe dream people sell to execs / investors / online courses.

reply
Yes and this can be proven because what Anthropic says and does is vastly different

They say SaaS is dead and you can vibe code any SaaS using Opus and yet despite having Mythos with them they have to use JS terminal to run Claude Code.

Why don't they just vibe code CC? Why doesn't Dario have a 100000 agent swarm to run entirety of Anthropic or at least software department?

reply
They've said for some time that Claude Code is 90% LLM generated code.
reply
Yeah and it's still a cli tool running on JS

So it's not a brag

They could just write in Rust directly can't they? If they do that then they're doing what they preach

reply
My app is written in TypeScript. With agents I could rewrite it in Rust, I just don’t need to so I don’t. It doesn’t warrant that level of performance and the business logic is more digestible in its current form. Given the amount of reviewing I need to do now, readability is worth more than performance. There are always tradeoffs.

Are you implying that them attempting a Rust rewrite would fail, and this is why they’re not doing it?

reply
Anthropic was saying that you don't need to review the code anymore.

If that was the case, it just makes no sense at all to use JS. Take the free performance gain and don't read the code.

reply
Yep they can just prompt Fable or Mythos!

Here is the prompt they can use:

Claude, migrate Claude Code into Rust. Make no mistakes!

reply
> business logic is more digestible in its current form.

Well, Anthropic spent many $ teling everyone that code is dead so this doesn't matter to them does it? Their business logic can be written in English!

reply
claude code VSS - 70Gb

codex VSS - 600Mb

reply
Also famously terrible. If not for the walled garden and the fact that anthropic can take away our ability to use custom harnesses any day, I would not be using CC. Given some of the features they add I've also started to suspect that their models are making product decisions. Not necessarily intentionally, but more in the sense that I think their engineers just let their models build and add whatever it feels like is a good idea to the codebase and then they just publish that.
reply
Yes, that's true, but in the post, they even mention that building the spec is the scarce resource.

  For that to work, the swarm has to actually follow the spec, which is what much of this post is about. We gave the swarm 835 pages of prose and it came back with a database. What was scarce in this experiment, and what we expect to be scarce in software engineering going forward, is the right description of intent.
reply
but that's what we use the agent "swarm" to do .. it's also not scarce. what's scarce is imagination.
reply
We're rediscovering the "architect" job role a decade or so after switching to agile processes and staff engineers largely replaced it. God help us when they rediscover UML for agents.
reply
I feel like the scarcity of (idealized) Product Managers is even more acute.
reply
Easily the biggest delta between a good one and a bad one I've ever encountered. It's so easy to test too. Just ask a product manager if they can give a talk on <some product they own> in 2 hours. If they respond by slacking all of the engineers that work under them to stop what they're doing and give them the info to give that talk, fire them. If they are ready to talk right now then give them a raise.
reply
deleted
reply
I mean, how long are these pages? Assuming 40 or so lines per page, that would be 33400 lines of spec turned into 200,000 lines of Rust, or about 6 lines of code per line of spec. That's a very detailed spec, much more than any software specification I have ever written in my career. It's not obvious to me that writing this spec would meaningfully save work over incrementally building individual features, especially when you think about what it would take for human beings to meaningfully review whether those 835 pages contain the right intent.
reply
not only that, but what all of this misses is the fact that the specification that they used was a product of writing the software, not the other way round. It would be much, much more difficult to first write a correct specification than to first write a correct program, because programs are formal systems that can be executed to observe their correctness. You can’t do that with a specification.
reply
Or to validate the accuracy and efficacy of the actual code produced.
reply
Well, the tool works well. I am grateful that Nature has seen fit that the same kind of person who can make it doesn’t also have the ability to identify what needs exist in the market because then all software would flow out of OpenAI and Anthropic and the rest of us would run about their legs and peep about. Whether product development will survive the next generation of models is still unknown.
reply
bro it can't even make a button that doesn't look like it was designed in 2018, everything is ass. Product development isn't going anywhere.
reply
deleted
reply
it feels kind of like a concept car a large manufacturer would show off at a motor show. Everyone knows there is no intention to actually ship that thing, but they're exploring concepts and technology and trying to make inroads in what comes next.
reply
The bottleneck has always been on the product side for 99% of cases. For the 1% where it's engineering, LLMs don't help as much.
reply