You may have worked with people whose meaning of "code quality" encompassed things that you found inconsequential and a waste of effort. They may have even told you that if you didn't care about those things, then you didn't care about code quality. But that's not true. It only meant you disagreed with them about what code quality is and how to recognize it.

You draw a distinction between aspects of code that tend to lead to better outcomes and aspects of code that don't matter. You say you know what tech debt looks like. When you look at a codebase, you have opinions on where time should be spent to improve it. "Code quality" is shorthand for the heuristics underlying those opinions.

Instead of accepting that other, possibly dumber people get to define what code quality is, own your own definition of it and use it when you communicate with other people.

Also, this argument is some grade school smarty pants "I'm too smart to show my work" bullshit:

> And because the interviewer can’t distinguish “skipped steps due to incompetence” from “skipped steps due to operating at a higher cognitive level,” they default to the interpretation that protects their ego.

I thought the days of hiring toxic "so smart I can't communicate" superstars was over?

I don't understand why these are seen as mutually exclusive choices. I think I would be in both of these camps if I were a student.

Among skeptics, I've only seen people won over by using it themselves, because when they use AI for their own work, they invest the time to review the code, understand it, and assess its quality by their own standards. That's how people learn to trust AI coding assistance.

Incentivizing people who are already using AI to use as many tokens as possible does seem a little crazy, though.

If you're fancy, what do you do when mass production and the internet make the markers of fanciness accessible to the very people you're trying to be fancier than? For one, you stigmatize mass production and elevate artisanal handmade goods. Those are inherently impossible to democratize. Another thing you can do is replace the appreciation of quality with the act of discovery as proof of elevated taste. Make taste a moving target, so the dirty unwashed masses are always a step behind.

Brands like Brooks Brothers or Eddie Bauer have no place in this system. The best the masses can do to imitate the elites is buy cheap fast fashion from brands that go viral and don't live long enough for anyone to know their quality before they're gone.

Possibly more accurate answer: it depends on what kind of housing people live in, if they have kids, and if they work at home. Most residential houses were built for couples with children, so if someone owns a house and is single and/or childless, they likely have spare bedrooms that serve as a home offices, hobby spaces, or guest bedrooms. People living in apartments usually don't pay for more space than required for their daily needs.

I think the author would agree with most of what you wrote.

In this case, I feel like using the filesystem directly is the opposite: doing much more difficult programming and creating more complex code, in order to do less.

It depends on how you weigh the cost of the additional dependency that lets you write simpler code, of course, but I think in this case adding a SQLite dependency is a lower long-term maintenance burden than writing code to make atomic file writes.

The original post isn't about simplicity, though. It's about performance. They claim they achieved better performance by using the filesystem directly, which could (if they really need the extra performance) justify the extra challenge and code complexity.

"Why use spray paint when you can achieve the same effect by ejecting paint from your mouth in a uniform high-velocity mist?" If you happen to have developed that particular weird skill, by all means use it, but if you haven't, don't start now.

That probably sounds soft and lazy. I should learn to use my operating system's filesystem APIs safely. It would make me a better person. But honestly, I think that's a very niche skill these days, and you should consider if you really need it now and if you'll ever benefit from it in the future.

Also, even if you do it right, the people who inherit your code probably won't develop the same skills. They'll tell their boss it's impossibly dangerous to make any changes, and they'll replace it with a database.

"Go to sleep only when you are very tired" is a child's approach to sleep, it's what we all want to do, and by adulthood we learn that it's counterproductive. But we still want it so much that we regularly test it and are reminded why we don't operate that way.

It reminds me of the intuitive eating folks who say, "Ignore standard diet advice, just listen to your body and feed it what it knows you need," but then when you overeat, they say, "You aren't listening properly, you aren't in tune with your body." Then if you ask, "How will I know when I'm in tune with my body and listening to it properly?" they say, "When what it asks for matches standard diet advice."

We have a codebase at work that was "stuck." We've consistently done minor library upgrades, but no major upgrades in several years, and was recognized as a major piece of technical debt / minor disaster for almost two years, in that we urgently needed to dedicate an engineer to it for a month or more to bring it up to date. We also suspected that framework upgrades would improve performance enough to save us a little bit in operating costs. I got curious, created a branch, and threw Claude at it. Claude knocked it out in a couple of days while I mostly worked on other things. Then we dedicated several engineer days to doing extra manual testing. Done and deployed. Now we're ready to experiment with giving it less resources to see if the performance improvement holds up in practice.

This codebase was only about 200k lines of code, so probably smaller than yours. Really curious how it would go with a larger codebase.

EDIT: Claude may only have taken a couple of days because I was only checking in occasionally to give it further instructions. I don't know how fast it would have been with my complete attention.

When they aren't designed, how do you know how to test?

Over the weekend, I was directed to file a police report with a chatbot and could not complete it because it was asking for information that did not exist and did not apply to my case.

(I'm sure somebody is going to say that this can be solved by having LLMs role play as victims and have an LLM observe and decide what's a failing test case and what isn't.)

Nobody is happy about their property values going down long term. It exposes them to the risk of a big loss if they're forced to sell because of events in their life.