This seems like today's version of "I could write Facebook in a weekend."
What are the incentives for doing that? What are the incentives for everyone else to move?
So if proven things exist for basics, what's the incentive to not use them? If everyone decides they're too heavy, they could make and publish new libraries and tools would pick those up. And since they're old, the feature-set is probably more nuanced than you expect. YAGNI is a motto for doing less to avoid creating code debt, but writing more net new code to avoid using a stable and proven library doesn't fit that.
Importing a library for everything will become a dated concept. Similar to the idea that object relational mappers might go away if the ai can just write ultra complicated hyper efficient sql for every query
Why does the AI need SQL queries? Who needs that? It will just write its own ACID-compliant database with its own language, and while it's at it, reinvent the operating system as well. It's turtles all the way down.
It’s actually not a ridiculous concept, but I think in some ways code will go away, and the agent itself will do what the code used to do. Software of the future will be far more dynamic and on the fly. We won’t have these rigid structures
Why does the AI need hardware/chips? Why does the AI need the universe to exist? Why does the AI need math/logic to exist?
Using these preexisting will all become outdated. You will look like primitive cavemen if your agents don't build these from scratch every time you build $NEXT_BIG_THING.
Even local LLMs will be able to build these from scratch by end of 2026.
Yeah I actually think the very concept of software will see agents affect out. Agents will do what you used to code. And it will be automatic
ORMs have largely been fading away for a while because there are real wins of not using them.
Hyper-optimized HTTP request/response parsing? Yawn. Far less interesting.
AFAICT, the advantages of keeping context tight and focused have not gone away. So there would neeed to be pretty interesting advantages to not just doing the easy thing.
Build times too. I kinda doubt you're setting up strictly-modularized and tightly-controlled bazel builds for all your stuff to avoid extra recompilation... so why are we overcomplicating the easy stuff? Just because "it will probably function just as well"?
"leftpad"-level library inanity? Sure, even less need than before (there was never much). Substantial libraries? What's the point?
Hell, some of the most-used heavily-AI-coded software is going the opposite direction and jumping through hoops to keep using web libraries for UI even though they're terminal apps.
If AI makes the per line cost of producing software cheaper but you still need an expensive human in the loop then the per line cost is merely cheap not free or at the cost of electricity.
Given the choice between
A) having one AI produce a library and having 1000 produce code using that library which comes with tests human in the loop vetting documentation and examples which drastically increase the chance of the 1000 AIs doing it correctly
B) Having 1001 produce the same functionality provided by the library probably on average worse and requiring more expensive hand holding
What in that benefit of B? You might have slightly higher specificity to your use case but its more likely that the only increased specificity is shit you didn't realize you needed yet and will have to prompt and guide the AI to produce.
I fail to see how AI would obviate the need to modularize and re-use code.
This take is just an intermediary take until ai takes over software engineering. In the same way, eventually self driving cars will make human drivers look dangerous
I think your thought process is not taking into account what a super logical ai can do, and how effortlessly it could generate some of this code.
> effortlessly
Real question: does your world model suppose super exponential gains in intelligence and efficiency?
So that's what 10x means - 10 times the code because your app has no dependencies