claude code and codex are literally IDEs. as are any other remote agent that you use like them
you're not "in the terminal", in fact the product is selling you on the concept of being "in the terminal" as you work, but you're literally just asking a computer with ~full userspace access and direct ability to compile and run programs to do stuff for you, in an environment with "plugins" and like 30 "slash commands" and menus. it has auto-review and manages git for you and even writes your PR descriptions and other messages to your colleagues if you want. that is an integrated development environment.
I think if you can just run a one line bash command from a big company's website, and then just ask it to set up git and everything else for you (which it will default to anyway), and it tries to sell you on third party plugs in and Skills and managed proxies like MCP, and workflows, you are just using the new kind of IDE. And there is nothing bad about that because it makes us more productive to not have to mess with things like that. The idea that you are not using an IDE, or that we are "better" because the IDE looks like the development environment of the type of developer we'd admired in the post (but literally has the value proposition of being the easy way to accomplish that), is dangerous.
I've been an emacs user for most of my life, before I even went to college. I took a brief (5 years) tour into IDEs for writing code on the job, but the moment agents became a viable way to develop code I switched back into emacs. I love reviewing changes in magit.
I'm pretty sure many folks put up with the bloat of IDEs just for the functionality they offered. Now, they're hopping back to emacs, vim, sublime, whatever their heart desires.
Controversial take: Looking at lines of code is no longer a feasible task. Also it adds very little to quality for large swathes of user facing functionality. Instead focussing that much time on building a robust test suite is a better application of developer time.
They're not going to bother checking. It simply isn't going to be possible for humans to review code in the future where all code is being written by machines, and not having all code be written by machines is not an option.
Hell in the future LLMs probably won't even work with "code" at all, just bytecode directly. Why even bother with text when no human will ever lay eyes on it?
>We are gonna see some Knight Capital level fuckups shortly.
Yes, but humans fuck up too so it doesn't matter. Future go brrr.
True but the number is also decreasing every day. And I'd imagine that it's decreasing pretty rapidly.
claude code and codex are literally IDEs. as are any other remote agent that you use like them
you're not "in the terminal", in fact the product is selling you on the concept of being "in the terminal" as you work, but you're literally just asking a computer with ~full userspace access and direct ability to compile and run programs to do stuff for you, in an environment with "plugins" and like 30 "slash commands" and menus. it has auto-review and manages git for you and even writes your PR descriptions and other messages to your colleagues if you want. that is an integrated development environment.
I think if you can just run a one line bash command from a big company's website, and then just ask it to set up git and everything else for you (which it will default to anyway), and it tries to sell you on third party plugs in and Skills and managed proxies like MCP, and workflows, you are just using the new kind of IDE. And there is nothing bad about that because it makes us more productive to not have to mess with things like that. The idea that you are not using an IDE, or that we are "better" because the IDE looks like the development environment of the type of developer we'd admired in the post (but literally has the value proposition of being the easy way to accomplish that), is dangerous.
So what are they going to review the slop in? Or are they just not gonna bother checking?
We are gonna see some Knight Capital level fuckups shortly.
I've been an emacs user for most of my life, before I even went to college. I took a brief (5 years) tour into IDEs for writing code on the job, but the moment agents became a viable way to develop code I switched back into emacs. I love reviewing changes in magit.
I'm pretty sure many folks put up with the bloat of IDEs just for the functionality they offered. Now, they're hopping back to emacs, vim, sublime, whatever their heart desires.
Controversial take: Looking at lines of code is no longer a feasible task. Also it adds very little to quality for large swathes of user facing functionality. Instead focussing that much time on building a robust test suite is a better application of developer time.
>Or are they just not gonna bother checking?
They're not going to bother checking. It simply isn't going to be possible for humans to review code in the future where all code is being written by machines, and not having all code be written by machines is not an option.
Hell in the future LLMs probably won't even work with "code" at all, just bytecode directly. Why even bother with text when no human will ever lay eyes on it?
>We are gonna see some Knight Capital level fuckups shortly.
Yes, but humans fuck up too so it doesn't matter. Future go brrr.
Trying to review slop code by eye is as productive as using pencil and paper to check address arithmetic in assembly from a compiler.