I'd say you identified a difference with modern names. This split has certainly grown wider in the "code is cheap" AI era and changed meaning.
I'm firmly in the camp of actually enjoying programming. To me it was interesting to hear that some people actually don't like it all, and it's much nicer to have something "just do it".
Over my career I've leant much more heavily into programming as the art.
I wouldn't even say "how do you balance" is too much of a problem, as we all can vary between needs, you know?
I've found really hammering it with *important*, all caps, "NEVER", etc finally made it start using the tidewave MCP for elixir development well. It felt really heavy handed but it worked.
I would say a lot of people are only posting their positive experiences. Stating negative things about AI is mildly career-dangerous at the moment where as the opposite looks good. I found the results from using it on a complicated code base are similar to yours, but it is very good at slapping things on until it works.
If you're not watching it like a hawk it will solve a problem in a way that is inconsistent and, importantly, not integrated into the system. Which makes sense, it's been trained to generate code, and it will.
Seems generally worse for the world if we want to force everyone to work 24/7 with no joy or interests outside of work. Ah well. Do you think they can recognize it? I don't think any of these companies will have anything interesting to say, last ten years, or improve lives.
It mostly looks like an act to me, a cargo cult where if they offer up enough "work" they'll be rewarded, disregarding any usefulness.
As far as I could tell, the article seems to be specifically about founders, not "everyone".
Personally I don't agree even for founders since I've seen too many that end up just grinding the gears without producing value - when that leads to meetings etc reducing the productivity of the entire team it's a problem. But committing to a stressful life as a founder in itself doesn't seem that bad as long as it's not propagated poorly to the team.
As far as I could tell, by reading the article, it is supposed the be culture of the company. The culture of the company of course applies to people they hire. Do you understand that?
I imagine one'd have much more time to create things that matter to them as well, or at least the option to pursue such things. Kind of an odd potshot on op's part.
I'm firmly in the camp of actually enjoying programming. To me it was interesting to hear that some people actually don't like it all, and it's much nicer to have something "just do it".
Over my career I've leant much more heavily into programming as the art.
I wouldn't even say "how do you balance" is too much of a problem, as we all can vary between needs, you know?
reply