Well, it always depends on your environment. In my case, nothing forces me to heavily use AI, so my workflow is kind of the old way, but with less hassle.
- Do your thinking alone. (AI part: search, understanding)
- Specing. (AI part: search, understanding, completing some text)
- Coding like the old days. (AI part: search, understanding, code examples)
- Okay, now I have a good idea of how my feature is going to work
- Look for fluff code and delegate it to AI to write/review it.
- Focus on the part of the code I want to have fun doing.
- Review.
- Repeat.
It’s slower than the approach of doing specs and letting AI do the rest, while focusing your role only on code review. However, I’m more in control of what I build, I can explain what I built better than everyone else, and I build up my knowledge. (also I have less problems, because less code haha)
Will I go for the full Agentic way ? Maybe but I will find a way to slow it down so I can be in control
I like this, and it mirrors my experience.
I felt that, by using the "full agentic way" I am implicitly accepting the fact that all the knowledge I have right now is all the knowledge I will ever need or want to have (with the exception of new knowledge on how to ask AI to do things, I guess).
This seems like a nice way to enable yourself with AI, but not replace your brain completely.
Awesome, the first comment that agrees with me, haha.
Yes, this is slow, but still fast compared to the old ways. It was liberating for me because I’m really enjoying this AI era again, while also improving.
The time I have won, I’m investing in reading more complex books about CS, discovering new engineering feats, etc.
Regarding the fully agentic way, I think the learning curve to get a system like that working is minimal, so there’s no need to spend a lot of time learning it.
It’s better to invest that time elsewhere.