[philbo]

As one of the curious minority who keeps trying agentic coding but not liking it, I've been looking for explanations why my experience differs from the mainstream. I think it might lie in this nugget:

    > I believe with Claude Code, we are at the
    > “introduction of photography” period of
    > programming. Painting by hand just doesn’t
    > have the same appeal anymore when a single
    > concept can just appear and you shape it
    > into the thing you want with your code review
    > and editing skills.

The comparison seems apt and yet, still people paint, still people pay for paintings, still people paint for fun.

I like coding by hand. I dislike reviewing code (although I do it, of course). Given the choice, I'll opt for the former (and perhaps that's why I'm still an IC).

When people talk about coding agents as very enthusiastic but very junior engineering interns, it fills me with dread rather than joy.

[boredhedgehog]

> still people paint, still people pay for paintings

But in what environment? It seems to me that most of the crafts that have been replaced by the assembly line are practiced not so much for the product itself, but for an experience both the creator and the consumer can participate in, at least in their imagination.

You don't just order such artifacts on Amazon anonymously; you establish some sort of relationship with the artisan and his creative process. You become part of a narrative. Coding is going to need something similar if it wants to live in that niche.

[philbo]

I don't disagree with any of that. But as long as there are companies willing to pay me to write code the old-fashioned way, I'll keep doing it.

[samgutentag]

I totally get this side of things. I see the benefits of Agentic coding for small tasks, minor fixes, or first drafts. That said, I don't understand the pseudo-tribalism around specific interfaces to what amounts to only a few models under the hood and worry about what its doing for (or not doing for) junior devs.

Also, if we could get AI tooling to do the reviews for us reliably, I'd be a much happier developer.

[gitaarik]

I don't think it's a complete good comparison. In the past painting was the only way to depict real world events, but painting is also art, and it often doesn't necessarily depict reality, but the artist's interpretation of it. That is why people still paint.

So yeah if you like coding as an art form, you can still keep doing that. It's probably just a bit harder to make lots of money with it. But most people code to make a product (which in itself could be a form of art). And yeah if it's faster to reach your goals of making a product with the help of AI, then the choice is simple of course.

But yeah in a way I'm also sad that the code monkey will disappear, and we all become more like the lead developer who doesn't really program anymore but only guides the project, reviews code and makes technical decisions. I liked being the code monkey, not having to deal a lot with all the business stuff. But yeah, things change you know.

[itsalotoffun]

A more apt metaphor is moving from hand-tools to power-tools.

The painting/photography metaphor stretches way too far imo - photography was fundamentally a new output format, a new medium, an entirely new process. Agentic coding isn't that.