Why is that AI was supposed to help juniors shine, because plenty of so called "senior devs" have never really learned properly, bad habits, or lack technical breadth to be called that. This article is nothing more than what everyone else has been saying for two years, poorly at best. AI + coding has yet to hit it's stride and at some point highly specific LLM's will take into account of architecture, patterns, use-cases, compute environments, network, dev ops, testing, and coding to further equalize and close the gaps between the two roles. I've talked to seniors devs many are not interested in AI coding, just not the way they do things.
The only real advantage a senior dev has today is domain knowledge specific to a business in many cases. Even that is not much to hold on to because when layoffs come if nobody is hiring jr's then the seniors are getting axed.
You also risk senior talent who stay but doesn't want to change or adopt, at least with any urgency. AI will accelerate that journey of discovery and learning, so juniors are going to learn super fast.
>will accelerate that journey of discovery and learning,
Okay, but what about work output? That's seems to be the only thing business cares about.
Also, maybe it's the HN bias but I don't see this notion where old engineers are rejecting this en masse. More younger people will embrace it. But most younger people haven't mucked in legacy code yet (the lifeblood of any businesses).
I think it's a combination of both, the LLM's today for coding are just average containing a lot of pre-2024 knowledge. The vibe tools are getting around some of the shortcomings and increased token limits which is great, but up to date current knowledge can't rely on llm.txt doc updates as context and expect reasonable code generation. Give me some monthly updated topic related LLM's to use (coding, content writing, history), I don't need the entire world all the time.
Like a new diet every week, not everyone is losing weight. Great for snippets, suggestions, and helping with errors. But a long ways to go before it's more consistent and commonly used.
Not OP, but at a minimum I'd expect range searches to work.
This particular search pattern could either be a open-ended range search "all products 80-infinity" or it could be a keyword search "80+" as in "PSU 80+ Gold".
I'm also noticing that many results have mixed-bag prices, while I was expecting something closer to being ranked by the price delta. For example "psu" returns 5 different $155 products, but "psu 300" returns a $2000 RTX 4090 along with 4 $155 PSU's. I don't know if it's a coincidence that the RTX has a stock of "304" or if you're applying the ranking method to fields outside of price.
Yeah, right now I'm not supporting ranges but can see the value and will work on adding in
The demo is setup to match on the description, price and stock columns, when you send a message I try to parse it into searches for each column. I'm realizing with these kinds of searches that I probably have to do more work on that parsing, because its not super clear if that number should be part of the description search or matching against price, etc..
Numbers are incredibly common in many products - pretty much most computer parts (3080, 4090, z270, 13900k). Should probably always include them in ranking, but not necessarily filtering. Consider "PlayStation 5 games" should prioritize PS5 games, but many PS4 games may also be eligible. What it should not prioritize are $5 PlayStation 1 games.
Many of these challenges are obviated through "advanced" UI with separate fields for things like min/max price, though that's not available in text-only mediums.
It's been different companies at different times, but over the last 20 years HP does seem to have been particularly prolific at buying weird mostly-dead junk.
Pretty easy to filter out a majority of devs who don't know much including juniors before hiring. Not knowing stackflow doesn't mean much, but then again professors think that's cheating so why should they reference it. No reason to trash jr devs, they don't know what they don't know because colleges ignore what they need in preparation for real world interviews and readable resumes.
A Computer Science degree does not teach you to be a good software engineer. In fact, you don't even need a degree to be a good software engineer. For 99% of the software engineering jobs, employers are not looking people who know the theory of computation, algorithmic complexity, operating systems, compilers, or even how a database works. What they want is the following:
0. A strong desire to solve the user's problem and the organization's problem.
1. Knowledge of a major programming language like JavaScript, Java, Python, C/C++, C#, etc.
2. Knowledge of how to use an SQL database or maybe a no SQL database.
3. Knowledge of how to debug the build process and write scripts in Bash, PowerShell, etc.
4. Knowledge of at least 1 major framework.
5. Knowledge of Linux, MacOS, or Windows.
6. An ability to read documentation and learn.
7. An ability to debug large programs and fix bugs without introducing more bugs.
8. A desire to think critically and choose the appropriate technology for the problem (very hard, takes a lot of experience).
9. An ability to write clear code which others will understand.
10. The ability to write, argue, and persuade others.
11. A good person who works well with others, puts the product before himself, and is honest.
Almost all of these things are not taught to computer science majors. At best, a person will learn 1 to 2 languages and maybe Linux. Expecting computer science programs to produce good software engineers is crazy because software engineering and computer science are two different things.
I'm sure that's happening right now. On the flipside will companies who hire in 4 years look at those CS/SWE kids as lessor skilled devs because they relied so much on AI to pass classes and didn't really learn?
There was a similar effect during the dot com boom / crash.
Everyone and their dog got a CS degree, and the average quality of that cohort was abysmal. However, it also created a huge supply of extremely talented people.
The dot-com crash happened, and software development was "over forever", but the talented folks stuck around and are doing fine.
People that wanted to go into CS still did. Some of them used stack overflow and google to pass their courses. They were as unemployable as the bottom of the barrel during the dot com boom.
People realized there was a shortage of programmers, so CS got hot again for a bit. Now LLMs have hit and are disrupting most industries. This means that most industries need to rewrite their software. That'll create demand for now.
Eventually, the LLM bust will come, programming will be "over forever" again, and the cycle will continue. At some point after Moore's law ends the boom and bust cycle will taper off. (As it has for most older engineering disciplines.)
The only real advantage a senior dev has today is domain knowledge specific to a business in many cases. Even that is not much to hold on to because when layoffs come if nobody is hiring jr's then the seniors are getting axed.