> Code was malleable only to a developer with great code comprehension
replyThis used to be what being a dev was, if I recall. It's been a few years.
I think we romanticise the old days of coding now that agents are doing it.
replyRegarding the average developer as an imbecile was a cottage industry from Djikstra to FizzBuzz.
I romanticized even before, because there is a reason why society's view of developers shifted from geek losers to rich in the past 15 years. I remember when 15 years ago a girl told me that I'm different, because I'm not as looser as how she imagined developers.
replySure, but it was certainly a difference between those projects you authored and those you inherited, at least in time-to-productiveness.
replyThe ability to understand and maintain inherited projects is more valuable than the ability to create new greenfield projects.
replyIn terms of value as an income, then for a consultant this is most likely true - for staff working in a megacorp not so much.
replyAnd often, it's not the code that is the issue. You understand the code perfectly fine and can edit it easily. The main issue is always finding out the "why" so you do not remove any Chesterton's fence while coding for a new change request.
replyPeople with poor comprehension have been changing code for years, and in great numbers. Doesn't mean it goes well, mind you.
replyThe big trick always was to limit your scope. If you can't do that or if your tooling doesn't help you with that then very quickly you will run into the limits of what you can still keep in your head.
reply