this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
608 points (99.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

27631 readers
1552 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
anzo@programming.dev
Feyter@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
608
Programmers are no longer needed! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 19 hours ago by cm0002@lemmings.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Getting ai to do a complex problem correctly takes so much detailed explanation, it's quicker to do it myself

[–] TurdBurgler@sh.itjust.works -5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

While it's possible to see gains in complex problems through brute force, learning more about prompt engineering is a powerful way to save time, money, tokens and frustration.

I see a lot of people saying, "I tried it and it didn't work," but have they read the guides or just jumped right in?

For example, if you haven't read the claude code guide, you might have never setup mcp servers or taken advantage of slash commands.

Your CLAUDE.md might be trash, and maybe you're using @file wrong and blowing tokens or biasing your context wrong.

LLMs context windows can only scale so far before you start seeing diminishing returns, especially if the model or tools is compacting it.

  1. Plan first, using planning modes to help you, decomposition the plan
  2. Have the model keep track of important context externally (like in markdown files with checkboxes) so the model can recover when the context gets fucked up

https://www.promptingguide.ai/

https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/claude-code-best-practices

There are community guides that take this even further, but these are some starting references I found very valuable.

[–] onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world 18 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

So even more work than actual coding.

[–] expr@programming.dev 14 points 11 hours ago

Yup. It's insanity that this is not immediately obvious to every software engineer. I think we have some implicit tendency to assume we can make any tool work for us, no matter how bad.

Sometimes, the tool is simply bad and not worth using.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Everyone is a senior engineer with an idiot intern now.

[–] TurdBurgler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Early adopters will be rewarded by having better methodology by the time the tooling catches up.

Too busy trying to dunk on me than understand that you have some really helpful tools already.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

While you're right that it's a new technology and not everyone is using it right, if it requires all of that setup and infrastructure to work then are we sure it provides a material benefit. Most projects never get that kind of attention at all, to require it for AI integration means that currently it may be more work than it's worth.

[–] TurdBurgler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago

This is why I say some people are going to lose their jobs to engineers using AI correctly, lol.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -2 points 7 hours ago

"If I need to write boilerplate and learn a new skill, is it really worth it?"