Loading…

Do you still think coding is in demand?

Ovid
Public 13 conversations 19 thoughts 57 upvotes 13 downvotes 1 series 350 views

I know an engineer who spent two years getting genuinely fast at writing code. Not sloppy fast, but clean, beautiful, well-tested fast. He could turn a ticket into a working pull request in the blink of an eye. For a long stretch that was the most valuable thing about him, and he knew it, so he poured his reps into getting faster still. It was great to see.

In series

In groups

Thought

Thought

Zanne

A dear friend of mine was in a similar situation. But he mostly got through it because the thing that made him irreplaceable wasn't his coding skills, but his problem solving ones. He got the job because of them, but when everyone in his company started l

A dear friend of mine was in a similar situation. But he mostly got through it because the thing that made him irreplaceable wasn't his coding skills, but his problem solving ones. He got the job because of them, but when everyone in his company started looking to him for answers, that's when he says his position grew safer.

So I think maybe one of the things most talked about is how someone still needs to supervise AI work. And that someone needs to know what to look for. That knowledge -and that time spent learning it- can totally be translated to other areas, in my opinion. Even if it hurts our prides, opening our scope is a necessity these days. Learning to let go of something you put such hard work in, and understanding it's still valuable even if you don't need it anymore, is a skill in itself.

Post content

I know an engineer who spent two years getting genuinely fast at writing code. Not sloppy fast, but clean, beautiful, well-tested fast. He could turn a ticket into a working pull request in the blink of an eye. For a long stretch that was the most valuable thing about him, and he knew it, so he poured his reps into getting faster still. It was great to see.

An AI agent now does the first draft of that work in seconds. Honestly, better than me and him and most on the hard cases, and definitely on the day to day kind of work. The thing he spent two years sharpening did not disappear, but the price of it fell, and it fell fast, and it is not coming back up.

He did nothing wrong by the old rules. Getting better at the core task of your job is supposed to be a safe bet, the mistake was not effort or discipline. It was investing those against a skill that was about to get abundant, when the same hours could have gone somewhere that stays scarce. Not his fault, none of us engineers guessed that coding would get comoditized so easily.

You are paid for what is hard to replace, not for what is hard to do. Often, those used to travel together. Writing good code was both hard to do and hard to replace, so practicing the doing also protected the replacing. AI split them apart. It is still hard to do, but is super easy to replace. Your (and my) pride in your coding skills are likely holding you back because you're attached to a hard skill that is hard to master and, in reality, has been practically automated away. Producing code, copy, and design got cheap. Really cheap.

It has been a long reflection this year, but sadly it is true. Coding, as a skill, is not valued anymore. It's ok. It's sad, and it can be frustrating to accept for those who spent a lot of time, like myself, mastering it. It was very fun, very satisfying. But sadly, it is a solved problem.

Thoughts

  • sunshine

    I am trying to think an example to prove it wrong, but sadly to say it is harder and harder to differentiate an entry level engineer and a mid-level engineer regarding writing code. I recently worked with an intern, he could do very well on repeated work or well documented work. However once he encounters a bug, he doesn’t know what it is expected behavior and needs help to clarify the real problem. I think business logic if not well documented or cross-system implementation and debug that need cross-team coordination are still hard to replace. However every org is encouraging team to document well and adopt AI, which does make the replacement faster. So our engineers are working hard to replace ourselves. It is not fully replacement though as we still engineers to get AI to work but will need less and less engineers. So every engineer should learn how to effectively use AI.

    Permalink
  • Zanne

    A dear friend of mine was in a similar situation. But he mostly got through it because the thing that made him irreplaceable wasn't his coding skills, but his problem solving ones. He got the job because of them, but when everyone in his company started looking to him for answers, that's when he says his position grew safer.

    So I think maybe one of the things most talked about is how someone still needs to supervise AI work. And that someone needs to know what to look for. That knowledge -and that time spent learning it- can totally be translated to other areas, in my opinion. Even if it hurts our prides, opening our scope is a necessity these days. Learning to let go of something you put such hard work in, and understanding it's still valuable even if you don't need it anymore, is a skill in itself.

    Permalink
  • BrightRaspberry

    This honestly made me think. Maybe the lesson isn't "don't learn coding," but "don't stop learning." Technology has always changed what skills are valuable.

    Permalink
  • AnonymusDragon

    I think coding became the new calculator. We didn't stop teaching math because calculators exist. We just started valuing higher-level thinking more. Maybe software engineering is heading in the same direction.

    Permalink
  • CommonSenseCarl

    I agree with some of this, but I think it's too early to say coding is a "solved problem." Writing code isn't the same as understanding systems, making trade-offs, or solving messy business problems. AI changes the job, but it doesn't replace engineering.

    Permalink
  • Arbazhussai7

    Yes, but with an important qualification.

    Coding is still in demand, especially for people who can solve real problems, not just write basic code. AI tools have automated many routine programming tasks, so employers increasingly value developers who can:

    • Build complete applications and systems.

    • Understand software design and architecture.

    • Debug, test, and maintain code.

    • Work with AI tools effectively.

    • Communicate and collaborate with teams.

    Basic coding alone is becoming less valuable, but strong software engineering skills combined with AI literacy remain in high demand. The job market has become more competitive, yet experienced and adaptable programmers continue to be sought after.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Does splitting 'hard' and 'soft' skills make people worse at both?

    Hard skills are measurable, specific, and teachable abilities or technical knowledge gained through education, training, or experience, which is often directly related to a particular job or industry. Examples include data analysis, programming, graphic design, accounting, dancing, painting… They are usually the core of a profession, particularly the part of it excluding interaction with other people. On the other hand, soft skills are mostly defined as “personal attributes, interpersonal....

  • Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?

    I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.

  • Does your personality matter far less than you think?

    I realize, interacting with students, teenagers and younger co-workers peers that many believe that their personality traits are a leading factor in deciding what do to or how to tackle their own career. Although younger people ask these questions more explicitly, older adults also seem to think along the same lines. I personally find it to be far more irrelevant than most people think. Besides my job, where I observe successful people doing the same role with drastically...

  • Do people who eat together fight harder for each other?

    Strong groups do not become strong only because they agree on a mission. They become strong because people stop feeling abstract to one another, they see each other as people and friends. That is one reason shared meals matter more than most official culture programs. You don't need expensive workshops and getaways to build a team culture. You just need to be present. Have lunch with your team, have them eat together. Have coffee together...

  • Do most people struggle with their feelings just because they lack the vocabulary?

    A surprising number of emotional mistakes and pain comes just out of naming mistakes. Someone says he is angry when he is really ashamed. Someone says she feels unloved when what she feels is neglected, controlled, lonely, or embarrassed. Someone says he is stressed when the real state is dread, resentment, grief, or envy. Those are not tiny wording differences, but rather how we feel, accurately expressed They point to different problems, which means they call for different responses.

  • Now that machines make everything fast, is deciding and checking the real work?

    Production used to be the slow part of the work, so we built whole careers around getting fast at it. Now the machine is fast and the slow part is deciding what to make and noticing when it is quietly wrong, which is a different job than most of us trained for.

  • Should you really emulate famous tech CEOs, or did they just get lucky?

    I think a lot of famous tech-management advice only looked wise because of the environment around it. Rising stock prices, captive talent, and equity upside made a lot of bad management survivable. Most organizations do not have those shock absorbers, which is why I think people should stop treating founder mythology as management advice.

  • Is a high salary ever really enough?

    Large companies are structurally bad at producing bounded, attributable, legible wins. Part of the salary is payment for living without them.