[rapind]

> But it's also likely that these tools will produce mountains of unmaintainable code and people will get buried by the technical debt.

It's not just likely, but it's guaranteed to happen if you're not keeping an eye on it. So much so, that it's really reinforced my existing prejudice towards typed and compiled languages to reduce some of the checking you need to do.

Using an agent with a dynamic language feels very YOLO to me. I guess you can somewhat compensate with reams of tests though. (which begs the question, is the dynamic language still saving you time?)

[Wobbles42]

Companies aren't evaluating on "keeping an eye on technical debt", but then ARE directly evaluating on whether you use AI tools.

Meanwhile they are hollowing out work forces based on those metrics.

If we make doing the right thing career limiting this all gets rather messy rather quickly.

[joquarky]

> If we make doing the right thing career limiting this all gets rather messy rather quickly.

This has already happened. The gold rush brogrammers have taken over.

Careers are over. Company loyalty is a relic. Now it's a matter of adapting quickly to earn enough to survive.

[zingar]

Tests make me faster. Dynamic or not feels irrelevant when I consider how much slower I’d be without the fast feedback loop of tests.

[rapind]

You can (and probably should) still do tests, but there's an entire class of errors you know can't happen, so you need far less tests, focusing only on business logic for the most part.

[recursive]

Static type checking is even faster than running the code. It doesn't catch everything, but if finding a type error in a fast test is good, then finding it before running any tests seems like it would be even better.