Code generation was never the hard part. Knowing wtf you’re supposed to actually write was always much harder and this hasn’t changed. It’s not hard to write a loop or an if-statement. It’s hard to actually solve a problem with them at production scale. Carmack’s Fast Inverse Squareroot is not hard to write - it’s hard to figure out how to even do one in the first place. Writing it out is the easy part.

Claude writes 90% of my code but the bottlenecks always were and still are:

* getting clear requirements from product

* getting the damn code reviewed so I can merge it

Neither of these are fixed. Frankly, overuse of AI has made both of these worse. Claude brained product owners going hog wild with Claude Design are a nightmare to deal with, and the volume of absolute trash quality code being submitted for review is soul crushing.

No, using AI to automate code reviews is not acceptable. Code Review isn’t about a systematic checklist (though they can help) it’s about making sure people understand the actual changes being made to the system because it’s people who are accountable for what happens in production. LLMs can be part of the process of reviewing code but they suffer from the same issues as any other chatbot based tools (hallucinations, context confusion or not enough context, getting bogged down in impossible code paths or other minutia, etc…) so you have to review that review carefully too. Human judgment is still king.

These days my job is primarily reviewing offshore slop and making sure it’s in a good enough state to merge. I’m doing merge and release management way more than actually coding (and it sucks btw because I actually enjoy coding with or without agents). If the quality of the code turned in for me to review and merge is any indication, engineers/system architects are going to have their hands full.

Someone said this?

Great article. Nice pragmatic and cool-head take on what is going on. Thank you for posting this.

Side note: I so forgot about the "Don't make me think" book! Thanks for reminding this exists. I submit this should be part of "Software Development 101", right there alongside SICP.

> If coding is easy, how come programmers were in high demand, and have demanded large salaries for years (even before ZIRP)?

Programmers are the only[1] hired professionals that can compete directly or go off the market entirely in their own venture with either:

A) nearly zero overhead costs

B) can afford the overhead costs

The compensation is to discourage programmers from doing so, make life comfortable enough for them to not want to bother with getting around IP assignments

The major market of California barring and invalidating non compete clauses in case law, and strengthened by the legislature, also codifies this premium

Make the software alchemist’s lives comfortable

[1] feel free to find counterpoints, and what is their compensation like?

Shots fired

2010 - "Everyone can learn to code, come work at my startup."

2026 - "Coding was always hard, please don't lay me off."

bro don't think in absolute,

of course coding is easy like painting is easy everything have a floor and ceiling

when coding is easy we talk about repetitive boring parts coding also could be hard its when you do with some square roots thingy and such

In which world are you living? For most programming jobs, the code is absolutely the easiest part of the whole thing, which is just gatekept into absurd bureaucracy and ceremony. Even if coding became 100x faster with 0 errors tomorrow, the software in most companies would still move at a snail's pace.

The author's primary misunderstanding in my opinion is that time consuming is being conflated with hard.

>If coding is easy, how come programmers were in high demand, and have demanded large salaries for years (even before ZIRP)?

There is more to those roles than just coding. In fact the more expensive "programmers" often do not code themselves.

>Why was there so much stress, overwork and burnout even before AI started churning out 5000-line PRs?

Something being time consuming is different from something being hard. There are simple factory jobs that also demand overworking.

>Why did companies seek 10x ninja rockstar coders and subject them to leetcode interviews—surely, a junior fresh out of college could churn out something if it's so easy?

Building software takes time and since velocity is important companies wanted people who could increase velocity.

>If coding is easy, why do we have doorstoppers like Clean Code and The Pragmatic Programmer? Is The Art of Computer Programming a light summer read? Is SICP a coffee-table book? Why do we have bootcamps or even whole college degrees dedicated to it?

So authors can make money? Programming is learned by a ton of kids on their own there is no need for boot camps or college degrees just for the benefit of being able to program.

If coding is easy, was Carmack just at the right place at the right time? Why do we consider Fabrice Bellard a genius?

The earlier you are to a field the easier it is to have your impact recorded. In markets with first movie advantage being earlier also helps a lot. A lot of people were able to program so what made them earlier than others was not just being able to program.

>If coding is easy, why are people angry at AI (or anyone else) copying their code? Why do they act like they've poured their sweat, soul, and copious amounts of time into something so trivial?

Again something being time consuming doesn't mean it was hard.

>If coding is easy, why do many now feel like their identity and professional purpose are being stripped away from them?

When you spend a big percentage of your life doing something it becomes part of your identity regardless of difficulty.

>If coding is easy, why is software so damn buggy?

Because making bug free software takes a lot of time and resources. Those resources have a higher return on investment elsewhere.

>If deciding what to build is the hard part, why do so many product managers seem clueless? Why aren't there rigorous 10-step interviews for them? Why aren't they getting paid more than the developers?

People are clueless because it is hard. Pay is not based off of difficulty.

>If deciding what to build is the hard part, why aren't market researchers, usability experts and—hell, customer success—considered rockstars in a software company? If “understanding the customer” is harder, why are business analysts looked down on as pencil pushers?

Because the company finds it cheaper to outsource? A ton of companies have their employees setting up and using telemetry to understand their customers so it's not a one dimensional thing.

>If implementation is easy and finding demand is harder, why are programmers upset when the salespeople promise a new feature to a customer to close the sale? They've found a genuine demand, something people will pay for!

Programming takes time and resources. These may have a higher return on investment elsewhere than this niche feature. It may make maintaining the entire product take more resources to support a niche feature.

>If coding is easy, why doesn't everyone just build ten variations of a thing and see which pans out?

Again building entire products takes a lot of resources. And 10x the cost of building every product is not going to be competitive in the market.

bro is thinking in absolute

everything have a ceiling and a floor

when people said coding is easy of course they mean the easy repetitive and boring parts, like when making UI div, grid flexbox that is the easy part