Hacker News
points by meowface 4 days ago | 0 comments
Good post. I like this example:

>Say you want to draw a perfect picture of an owl. You have this beautiful image of it in your mind. But you can’t draw very well, and in this analogy the drawing is the code. So what comes out is a stick-figure owl that’s barely recognizable as an owl.

>In the code-is-the-source-of-truth version, that stick figure is now the authoritative artifact. We analyze it, document it, take notes on its proportions, and spend a whole bunch of time iterating on it. We’re running in circles around a bad drawing.

My only disagreement with the post is over whether articulating is is the main bottleneck. Right now, there are still issues and oversights humans would tend not to make even if you have model context and documentation accurately and clearly capturing your full intent.

Each year will decrease the rate of this, but software engineering will probably need until maybe 2030 until we've crossed a threshold towards solely being product managers/designers. This advice still applies today, but you do need more wrangling on top.

[–] danielrm26 4 days ago
A great point. Yeah, it's not all an articulation issue.
[–] pass_the_salt22 4 days ago
The belief that the owl in the mind is perfect is a delusion. Intentions, writing, ideas are all highly non-specific. They might not even work at all when they make contact with reality. This is why lots of people can’t draw a functioning bicycle from memory. Delusion.
[–] meowface 3 days ago
The reality is both are true. The code artifact on the disk and the idea object in the brain should both be treated as contingent, relative, and incomplete, and unvertain.

Prolonged conversations with humans and AIs about both ideas and code is very useful.