Top
Best
New

Posted by napolux 1/11/2026

The next two years of software engineering(addyosmani.com)
328 points | 383 commentspage 3
bradleyjg 1/12/2026|
The bottom up and top down don’t seem to match.

Where is all the new and improved software output we’d expect to see?

athrowaway3z 1/12/2026||
I've been saying for a decade that one of the fundamental issues with SWE in the average company, is that management does not seem to understand that SWE is a management level job. Its not an assembly line worker. It requires reorganizing, streamlining, stake-holders, etc - in code and data - which directly affect people much the same that any other management role has. There are just fewer issues with HR and more with CDNs or CVEs.

> A CEO of a low-code platform articulated this vision: in an “agentic” development environment, engineers become “composers,”

I see we'll be twisting words around to keep avoiding the comparison.

zqna 1/12/2026||
My question: are those people who were building crappy, brittle software, which was full of bugs and and orher suboptimal behavior, that were the main reasons of slowing down the evolution that software, will they now begin writing better software because of AI? Answering yes, implies that the main reason of those problems was that those developers didn't have enough time to spend on analyzing those problems or to build protection harnesses. I would stronly argue that was not the case, as the main reason is of intelectual and personal nature - inability to build abstractions, to follow up the route causes (thus not aquiring necessary knowledge), or to avoid being distracted by some new toy. In 2-5 years I expect the industry going into panic mode, as there will be a shortage of people who could maintain the drivel that is now being created en masse. The future is bright for those with the brains, just need to wait this out
mellosouls 1/11/2026||
On the junior developer question:

A humble way for devs to look at this, is that in the new LLM era we are all juniors now.

A new entrant with a good attitude, curiosity and interest in learning the traditional "meta" of coding (version control, specs, testing etc) and a cutting-edge, first-rate grasp of using LLMs to assist their craft (as recommended in the article) will likely be more useful in a couple of years than a "senior" dragging their heels or dismissing LLMs as hype.

We aren't in coding Kansas anymore, junior and senior will not be so easily mapped to legacy development roles.

snovv_crash 1/12/2026|
Sorry but no. Software engineering is too high dimensional such that there is no rulebook for doing it the way there is for building a bridge. You need to develop taste, much like high level Go players do. This is even more critical as LLMs start to spit out code at an ever higher rate allowing entropy to accumulate much faster and letting unskilled people paint themselves into corners.

I think of it a bit like ebike speed limits. Previously to go above 25mph on a 2-wheeled transport you needed a lot of time training on a bicycle, which gave you the skills, or you needed your motorcycle licence, which required you to pass a test. Now people can jump straight on a Surron and hare off at 40mph with no handling skills and no license. Of course this leads to more accidents.

Not to say LLMs can't solve this eventually, RL approaches look very strong and maybe some kind of self-play can be introduced like AlphaZero. But we aren't there yet, that's for sure.

mellosouls 1/12/2026||
I don't think that conflicts with what I said but perhaps counters with something I didn't; your ebike analogy implies a recklessness that the junior with the attributes I mentioned will be averse to. Conversely the senior with the full grasp of LLMs and the "taste" and judgement will naturally be ahead.

But the comparison I made was between the junior with a good attitude and expert grasp on LLMs, and the stick-in-the-mud/disinterested "senior". Those are where the senior and junior roles will be more ambiguous in demarcation as time moves forward.

wakawaka28 1/11/2026||
The outlook on CS credentials is wrong. You'll never be worse off than someone without those credentials, all other things equal. Buried in this text is some assumption that the relatively studious people who get degrees are going to fall behind the non-degreed, because the ones who didn't go to school will out-study them. What is really going to happen generally is that the non-degreed will continue to not study, and they will lean on AI to avoid studying even the few things that they might have otherwise needed to study to squeak by in industry.
falloutx 1/12/2026|
The fundamentals of CS dont change and are more valuable to learn for the long term. Vibe coders think they can just bypass everything because they can ask a machine to write them a todo list.
wakawaka28 1/12/2026||
I think you're right but it's more like the theory and other thinking skills are harder to pick up on your own than particular technologies. You definitely still ought to learn both theory and particular tech skills, as they are not interchangeable. A person who only knows pure CS is difficult to employ as an engineer because programming entails particular technological skills.
megamix 1/12/2026||
The most important question is who will get paid the most? I don't think the future of software engineering will be attractive if all you do is more work for same or even less pay. A second danger is too much reliance on AI tools will centralise knowledge and THAT is the scariest thing. Software systems will need to perform for a long time, having juniors on board and people who understand software architecture will be massively important. Or will all software crash when this generation retires?
falloutx 1/12/2026||
The people who don't lose their jobs will also not be in a great spot, there wont be a guarantee that they will never lose their jobs, they will continue to live on the wobbly and uncertain foundation, will get fired for first no they say to the management. If software engineering falls, all the related industries will fall too, thus creating a domino effect, that none of the execs can imagine right now.
menaerus 1/12/2026|||
I really do wonder what sort of economy change is coming to us because companies will hypothetically need to hire less people to sustain the equal output of today. They can do that basically today so not even hypothetically anymore, it just needs some time to take off.

The question IMO is, who will be creating the demand on the other side for all of these goods produced if so many people will be left without the jobs? UBI, redistribution of wealth through taxes? I'm not so convinced about that ...

Ray20 1/12/2026|||
> The question IMO is, who will be creating the demand on the other side for all of these goods produced if so many people will be left without the jobs?

There is no reason why people will left without jobs. Ultimately, "job" is simply a superstructure for satisfying people's needs. As long as people have needs and the ability to satisfy them, there will be jobs in the market. AI change nothing in those aspects.

menaerus 1/12/2026||
I think it very much does. Those exact needs so far have been fulfilled by N people jobs. Today those same needs are going to be fulfilled by N-M people jobs. For your hypothesis to work, human, or shall I say better, market needs to scale such that M people left redundant will be needed to cover that new gap. The thing is that I am not so sure about the "scaling" part. Not to mention that people's skills also need to scale such so that they can deliver the value for scaling the market. Skills that we had until yesterday are slowly started to begin a thing of a past so I am wondering what type of skills people will need in order to get those "new" jobs? I would genuinely like to hear the opinion because I am not really positive that the market will self-adjust itself such that the economy will remain the same.
falloutx 1/12/2026|||
UBI is just a pipe dream. The rich are clutching their pearls even harder.
menaerus 1/12/2026||
I think so too.
hoss1474489 1/12/2026|||
> there wont be a guarantee that they will never lose their jobs, they will continue to live on the wobbly and uncertain foundation

The people who lose their jobs prove this was always the case. No job comes with a guarantee, even ones that say or imply they do. Folks who believe their job is guaranteed to be there tomorrow are deceiving themselves.

jpadkins 1/12/2026||
the people who start successful new companies will get paid the most.
Eong 1/12/2026||
Love the article, I had a struggle with my new identity and thus had to write https://edtw.in/high-agency-engineering/ for myself, but also came to the realisation that the industry is shifting too especially for junior engineers.

Curious about how the Specialist vs Generalist theme plays out, who is going to feel it more *first* when AI gets better over time?

xkcd1963 1/12/2026||
Please dear developers be as lazy as possible and use LLMs. The amount of bugs that get shipped enable me a comfortable life as opsec.
streetcat1 1/12/2026|
For some reason miss two important points:

1) The AI code maintainence question - who would maintain the AI generated code 2) The true cost of AI. Once the VC/PE money runs out and companies charge the full cost, what would happen to vibe coding at that point ?

NitpickLawyer 1/12/2026||
I think this post is a great example of a different point made in this thread. People confuse vibe-coding with llm-assisted coding all the time (no shade for you, OP). There is an implied bias that all LLM code is bad, unmaintainable, incomprehensible. That's not necessarily the case.

1) Either you, the person owning the code, or you + LLms, or just the LLMs in the future. All of them can work. And they can work better with a bit of prep work.

The latest models are very good at following instructions. So instead of "write a service that does X" you can use the tools to ask for specifics (i.e. write a modular service, that uses concept A and concept B to do Y. It should use x y z tech stack. It should use this ruleset, these conventions. Before testing run these linters and these formatters. Fix every env error before testing. etc).

That's the main difference between vibe-coding and llm-assisted coding. You get to decide what you ask for. And you get to set the acceptance criteria. The key po9int that non-practitioners always miss is that once a capability becomes available to these models, you can layer them on top of previous capabilities and get a better end result. Higher instruction adherence -> better specs -> longer context -> better results -> better testing -> better overall loop.

2) You are confusing the fact that some labs subsidise inference costs (for access to data, usage metrics, etc) with the true cost of inference on a given model size. Youc an already have a good indication on what the cost is today for any given model size. 3rd party inference shops exist today, and they are not subsidising the costs (they have no reason to). You can do the math as well, and figure out an average cost per token for a given capability. And those open models are out, they're not gonna change, and you can get the same capability tomorrow or in 10 years. (and likely at lower costs, since hardware improves, inference stack improves, etc).

haspok 1/12/2026|||
Perhaps thinking about AI generated code in terms of machine code generated by a compiler helps. Who maintains the compiled program? Nobody. If you want to make changes to it, you recompile the source.

In a similar fashion, AI generated code will be fed to another AI round and regenerated or refactored. What this also means is that in most cases nobody will care about producing code with high quality. Why bother, if the AI can refactor ("recompile") it in a few minutes?

cyberpunk 1/12/2026||
AI assists the maintenance. A lot of posts seem to think like once the code is committed the AI’s what, just go away? If you can write a test for a bug, likely it can be either fully or partially fixed by an ai even today.
More comments...