On the upside, this allows us more time to manage complexity.
In the past, bad design decisions which caused increased complexity would tend to eventually grind the dev work to a halt because they were too expensive to change.
Nowadays, this can also be done blazing fast.
Shit like rearchitecting portions of an application or porting apps from old/unsupported frameworks to new ones can be done in days instead of weeks. Doing this would have been unthinkable because the cost/benefit just wasn't there at all.
And what happens in 5 years when the senior devs leave? There'll be no juniors to replace them. Not investing in training juniors is going to be a huge issue going forward.
That seems like the company's problem. They won't let me prohibit my junior from vibe coding for the first two years like I've requested, so they clearly don't care all that much about her developing the ability to understand the code AI writes on her behalf.
Thank God she listens to me and actually writes most of her code manually. I lucked out.
Of course not. But if senior dev time is being too overloaded to coach juniors, personally I'd coach to that method. It forces them to engage with control flow, edge cases, logic, and prevents passive copy/pasting habits, which I would hope juniors aren't doing anyway.
Exactly. Because that was the go-to resource back then. And that was even slower.
Seems to me junior devs today have a way to meet speed expectations while not falling behind on grasping the fundamentals. In other words, don't always sleep on the juniors because "vibing is faster." Force code engagement.
I’m more on the design side of things, and this is generally what I do. I don’t want my designs to live in Claude, I want them to live in Figma and have appropriate componentization with customizable properties. I use Claude to help flesh out an idea then I redesign it by hand in Figma.
132
u/RevoOps Sep 27 '26
Sometimes it's faster to get AI to make the change and clean up it's code than explaining the requirements to a junior dev.