logoalt Hacker News

I'm sorry, but you still have to think

115 points • by drogus • today at 2:29 PM • 38 comments • view on HN

Comments

variety8675 • today at 5:45 PM

This article just reminds me that workslop is so hard to counter because it takes no effort to produce and immense effort to debunk

➕ show 4 replies
discreteevent • today at 5:45 PM

It's worth noting that the context here is a system that was translated by an LLM which is the ideal use case for it. 90% of the thinking had already been done by developers of the existing system.

➕ show 1 reply
Ozzie_osman • today at 5:29 PM

You need to understand the system you're working on enough to make well-informed decisions about its current and future states.

In some cases you can get away with not reading the code. And maybe in the future that will be more common. But for now, I personally prefer to read (or skim) the code, and not abdicate to AI.

tomrod • today at 5:31 PM

Informative thought process here. Pre-committing benchmarks to measure real efficiency gains might have helped, but hands-off complex rewrites are still not shovel ready.

➕ show 1 reply
stephbook • today at 5:58 PM

With all these ports, I always wonder: Who implements new features, and in which code base?

It's easy to port a codebase (at least, if you have automated tests), but once you've done that, do you

- Implement features in the old code and port again?

- Implement them in the new, unfamiliar codebase?

- Just write a Jira ticket and let the agent YOLO it?

as1mov • today at 5:40 PM

I dread for the future where "you have to think" is considered a controversial statement.

➕ show 3 replies
tripleee • today at 6:12 PM

My suspicion is DHH is intentionally creating controversy to drive interest to Omarchy

If he truly believed in the idea of never reading the code, he'd fire all his developers and have the designers do it all - create very high level feature descriptions and iterate on them. Put your money where your mouth is

wuhhh • today at 6:05 PM

Really appreciate the time taken to dig into this with solid improvements to boot, great work

IshKebab • today at 5:32 PM

I dunno. You still have to test, but in my experience if I noticed unreliability during high load I could just tell Claude "I noticed unreliability during high load" and it would easily have set up a high load benchmark, discovered this broadcast channel issue and fixed it.

It definitely improves the results if you do think but I don't think "you still have to think" is a safe space that's going to save us from unemployment.

➕ show 1 reply
thomascountz • today at 5:44 PM

This post resonates a lot with me and my approach to counter the idea that an LLM (as amazing as a tool it is) gives programmers permission to stop engineering. To me, executing a decision in the face of trade-offs is what the job is all about.

So, I want to keep pulling the thread: is it worth reading—meaning, understanding—the code in order to prevent p95 latency from skyrocketing, avoid OOM death, and keep our apps reliable for customers?

The cost of understanding the code is ostensibly very high relative to just using a clanker (citation needed), so does paying that cost translate to value—what is it worth? Concretely, if vibe coding increases bugs and enshittification, but decreases spending without decreasing revenue (read: customers suffer, but they don't leave), do we still need to pay the cost of reading code? Is it better to invest in stickiness, lobbying, and market capture?

I hope this comment isn't read as advocating for this; it's more of a thought experiment about pragmatism and trade-offs. I know that I personally care a lot about understanding the code, and I believe I'm paid to do exactly that (I very much enjoy understanding code and nobody is paying me to run a business, so I may be biased in this). In everyday SaaS-land—not talking about critical safety systems—we've seen production databases destroyed, personal data leaked, platforms unwittingly exploited, and UX bugs creep into our operating systems, and yet the companies involved keep on keeping on.

Is thinking, meaning taking the time to actually understand what these systems are doing, going to increase their shareholder value?

indrex • today at 5:18 PM

I had to google “clanker”.

➕ show 3 replies
sergiotapia • today at 6:06 PM

I feel a bit sad DHH did the elixir one so dirty. It's the only language with the rule to follow rails to the T and of course Elixir can fly and be incredibly powerful without redis and other bullshit. It feels deliberately hamstrung. Almost maliciously because heavy hitters like Jose Valim have told him about this and he just ignores it.

Not a good look tbh

adityaships • today at 6:02 PM

[flagged]