alt Hacker NewsFred Brooks, from "No Silver Bullet" (1986)
> All software construction involves essential tasks, the fashioning of the complex conceptual structures that compose the abstract software entity, and accidental tasks, the representation of these abstract entities in programming languages and the mapping of these onto machine languages within space and speed constraints. Most of the big past gains in software productivity have come from removing artificial barriers that have made the accidental tasks inordinately hard, such as severe hardware constraints, awkward programming languages, lack of machine time. How much of what software engineers now do is still devoted to the accidental, as opposed to the essential? Unless it is more than 9/10 of all effort, shrinking all the accidental activities to zero time will not give an order of magnitude improvement.
AI, the silver bullet. We just never learn, do we?
Replies
I think software was indeed 9/10 accidental activities before AI. Probably still mostly accidental activities with the current LLM.
The essence: query all the users within a certain area and do it as fast as possible
The accident: spending an hour to survey spatial tree library, another hour debating whether to make our own, one more hour reading the algorithm, a few hours to code it, a few days to test and debug it
Many people seem to believe implementing the algorithm is "the essence" of software development so they think the essence is the majority. I strongly disagree. Knowing and writing the specific algorithm is purely accidental in my opinion.
There are mixed views here. Some are making the claim relevant to the Silver Bullet observation, than LLMs are cutting down time spent on non-essential work. But the view that's really driving hype is that the machine can do essential work, design the system for you, and implement it, explore the possibility space and make judgments about the tradeoffs, and make decisions.
Now, can it actually do those things? Not in my estimation. But from the perspective of a less experienced developer it can sure look like it does. It is, after all, primarily a plausibility engine.
I'm all for investing in integrating these generative tools into workflows, but as of yet they should not be given agency, or even the aesthetic appearance of agency. It's too tempting to the human brain to shut down when it looks like someone or something else is driving and you're just navigating and correcting.
And eventually, with a few more breakthroughs in architecture maybe this tech actually will make digital people who can do all the programming work, and we can all retire (if we're still alive). Until then, we need to defend against sleepwalking into a future run by dumb plausibility-generators being used as accountability sinks.