the cynic in me would say that a good engineer should fully understand the code you write.

I'm not suggesting that AI is the problem here - you could vibe code with the AI have have it explain the reasoning and patterns - or else tell it to use 'simpler' patterns from the outset. For any one problem in software engineering, there are always multiple solutions; some slower, some faster, some more flexible etc. The code you produce should, imo, but at the level that you can understand it.

How can you reason about code you don't fully understand? How can you judge the future impact (technical debt and the cost of maintenance) of your projects?

A.I makes it easier to get yourself into problems early on.

I can't seem to get past this - all these decisions (and a work-force reduction :() are the result of a few days of pondering? I've had stomach aches that have lasted longer ..

Under the section 'Order of Operations':

> "Since the system of reference doesn’t determine existence, we can safely write to it first without committing anything. [...]"

Then the next paragraph

> "This principle—Write Last, Read First—ensures that we maintain application level consistency."

What I think it means is, 'writing-last to the system-of-record' and 'a read-first from the system of record' yields authoritative results, but I don't get that just from the title. Is my understanding correct?

tbf, that's not how I read the headline. The headline is: "How I, a non-developer, read the tutorial you, a developer, wrote for me, a beginner"

The author is a beginner, which puts them in the field - so the parent comment is valid no?

to be fair on this one, and while I don't flat out disagree, lots of people reinvent utility functions simply because they don't know they exist elsewhere, especially on huge code bases. This seems to get mostly rectified within the PRs, when a senior dev comments on it - the problem then is, you've only increased the number of people who now know by 1.

is that the problem? I'd have thought the problem is more about the ill effects of social media on children, not the children's behavior on said social media.