Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9rx | Hacker News Reader

> What does 'commoditization of coding' literally look like?

Presumably something like the 'commoditization of elevator operating' that we once saw. The elevator operator never went away, but operating elevators was simplified to the point that anyone could do it. At which time everyone started doing it, commoditizing the job.

In other words, it looks like programming languages that become increasingly approachable to any old random person on the street who can jump in without any meaningful past experience or special knowledge. You know doubt already what that looks like because we're already using those programming languages (e.g. GPT) in narrow domains to great effect. They have yet to prove themselves as complete general purpose programming languages, but they have made great strives towards that and it is, by many accounts, now only a matter of time.

View on HN

I can see it for simple toys, I just can't see it for more complex projects. I have no idea how you could use natural language to describe some complex business rules, and once you start having to write in a more logical language it's verging on the precision of code. And to then be able to audit the system, make minor changes and regression test, etc...

I can see it speeding engineers up, I can't see the guy on the clapham omnibus building a complex line of business app (or an operating system, flight computer, financial engine, MRI sequencer, etc...). And once it can't be your average Joe and it's someone who requires training, suddenly we're back to it not being a commodity.

> I can see it speeding engineers up

While in recent memory the engineer and the coder have oft been the same person, that wasn't always the case (historically there was a clear divide between the engineers and coders) and isn't always the case. I see no mention of engineers around this discussion. Is there a reason for its introduction?

I introduce professionals because I believe the real benefit will be speeding them up, not replacing them with laymen who suddenly have commoditised access to programming skills

? "Professional" was set out right from the onset. The question was about engineers, which, while it is true that coding and engineering is sometimes done by the same person, there is no reason why it has to be that way and, especially historically, coding is a separate job. The context is specifically about the job of coding, not the job of engineering. There is nothing to suggest engineers are being commoditized and never was.

I’m using the term engineer and software professional here interchangeably - I don’t get your points anymore

So be it, but the topic is explicitly about "professional coders". Not "engineer", not "software professional". It is literally stated in the title of the original link.

A coder and an engineer are not necessarily the same person. It has become more common to see people do both jobs, but in history it was unusual for the engineers and coders to be the same person, and the idea is that we're going back to that model – except this time the coder will be a machine instead of another human.

As in the old programmer/analyst distinction? Can’t see that coming back; it went out in the first place because it was hideously inefficient.

As in the old job of coder, short for "encoder". That does not appear to be the same thing you are talking about, but it was equally inefficient to have a second person doing the coding, especially as the tools improved. That is how we ended up with people splitting their roles as both engineer and coder. But the premise is that you won't need to worry about human coder anymore, not as a distinct individual and not a job shared with other jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com