90% of my code is auto generated using custom code generation tools. No AI needed.

I have never (in my 30+ years career) worked for a company that required formal code reviews. And yet have managed to deliver a ton of commercially successful software. I am pretty sure that adding a review step would have slowed me down tremendously. Without adding any commercial value.

However I can imagine that code reviews would work well for inexperienced developers being reviewed by more experienced developers?

At least in the US, code reviews are essentially mandated by legal compliance in publicly-traded companies. The law (SOX) says something like "no one person can destroy the company by making an engineering change", so viola, code review was invented. Private companies can probably get away with not doing code reviews, but often private companies want to pass security reviews like SOC 2.

> I am pretty sure that adding a review step would have slowed me down tremendously

This is very true. Everyone should work on a personal side-project at some point and realize just how much code review slows things down.

It’s rare to read an article where I agree 100% with everything written.

Bravo!

I have noticed that most developers prefer to spend a month typing code without having to think hard, instead of thinking hard for a bit and then solving the problem in a day.

I don’t get it. It’s very strange.

Lines of code is not a useful metric for anything. Especially not productivity.

The less code I write to solve a problem the happier I am.

I am still way more productive using customer code generators than using AI.

However AI’s are great for quickly learning how to use external tools/libraries (like JasperReports) and for quickly writing parser functions.

It is like any other tool: good for some things bad for others.

C++ developer here (30+ years). C++ is really missing support for sum types. The Haskell JSON example shows how useful it would be to have native support for it. Yes you can build your own but it’s pages of boiler plate code.

All code is data. Many languages (Haskell for example) can directly manipulate code as data (macros). The unique thing about lisp is that the code is represented as a car/cons list. Other languages could do the same when writing macros. However most have chosen not to.

Lisp doesn’t have a monopoly on “data”. And most Lisps are not functional (setq/setf).

Closure is different of course. But not more functional than Haskell for example.

> Everything is exposed as an API with little no insight to inner workings

This is how I build large scale biz software (30+ years of experience). And I have never seen a case where it wasn't a good idea.

For example, the largest software system in the world (the internet) operate this way.

However I am always open to learn something new?