> As long as interfaces are well defined, comprehensive tests are written, memory is safely handled and time complexity is analyzable, who cares what the rest of the code looks like
The thing is, code that does all of the things you listed here is good looking code almost by definition
If AI was anywhere near capable of producing this quality then it would be so thrilling, wouldn't it?
But it's not. The consensus seems to be pretty universal that AI code is Junior to Intermediate quality at best, the majority of the time
That generally isn't code that satisfies the list of quality criteria you mentioned
No, but the goal of mentoring a Junior or Intermediate developer is that they eventually learn this stuff on their own. The value of helping another human grow is worth the tradeoff
AI is a tool, not a human. I'm not about to invest in it the way I would a Junior developer. If the tool doesn't do the job, it's not a good tool. If a tool requires the same level of investment that a human does it's also not a good tool
These factors are now getting baked into the tools. Primarily via prompt engineering, and what might be called "agentic design," which is how much complexity you put into a single pass vs some hierarchical layering of agents and tools with distinct jobs.
I've been deobfuscating claude code to watch their prompts evolve as I use it and you an see the difference around how and when it chooses to re-analyze a codebase or how it will explicitly breakup work into steps. A lot of the implicit knowledge of software engineering is being added, _outside_ of the LLM training.
But you are holding it wrong, and experience is the difference in being able to recognize when oft-repeated advice should actually be seriously considered, vs dismissing entire swaths of engineers who are holding it right.
Do you know how tiring it gets to constantly engage with people who complain about agentic workflows without actually having the experience or knowledge to properly evaluate them? These people already have intentionally closed their minds on the subject, but still love to debate it loudly and frequently even though they have little intention of actually considering others' arguments or advice. What could be an educational moment turns into ideological warfare reminiscent of the text editor or operating system wars.
It's beginning to get infuriating, because of the unbridled arrogance typically encountered by naysayers.
The thing is, code that does all of the things you listed here is good looking code almost by definition
If AI was anywhere near capable of producing this quality then it would be so thrilling, wouldn't it?
But it's not. The consensus seems to be pretty universal that AI code is Junior to Intermediate quality at best, the majority of the time
That generally isn't code that satisfies the list of quality criteria you mentioned