Georg WeissenbacherMar 5
@krismicinski @shriramk @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek we have been claiming for decades that we are not just educating coding monkeys, so it shouldn't really matter that LLMs can now do all the coding. As far as I see it, it's still necessary to identify and clearly formulate verifiable requirements and specifications, come up with a modular design, and verify the whole thing, because I still believe the ultimate responsibilty lies with the developer. So students still need to understand the fundamentals. But yes, it has become much harder to check *at scale* whether they actually grasped them.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6

@GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek
Yes to most of that. I think it's not that hard to assess if that is what people were always assessing that.

I actually disagree w/ your opening comment. Most intro CS educators will say (and have said), "I don't teach programming, I teach *problem solving*" (whatever the fuck that is). My response is, "great, this should be your liberation! Programming got easy, what are your «problem solving» ideas?"

Show threadTony Garnock-JonesMar 6
@shriramk @GeorgWeissenbacher @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek ... did programming get easy? Can one be said to be programming if one asks someone else (or an LLM) to write a program for you? Or is some other kind of (not- or not-quite-programming) interaction going on?
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek
I very much think of what I'm doing with Claude Code as a kind of programming — indeed, the kind of programming I always wished I could do! But if it makes you happier to use a different term for it (not "vibecoding", that has too many specific connotations and is definitely not how *I'm* doing things), and it's *useful* to have that other term…that's fine by me. I guess my slogan is: "Philosophy…but not too much".
Show threadLindsey KuperMar 6
@shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek This comment made me realize something about myself: this is *not* a kind of programming I always wished I could do. I really only like programming because I like manipulating formal systems. That might explain a lot about why this kind of programming doesn't appeal to me, aside from all the bad externalities.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@lindsey @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek
One thing I've learned over the past few months is that there seem to be two kinds of "programmers" even in the very rarified space of "profs with a PhD in PL/FM/…": those who really like code and those are indifferent to it in light of other aspirations. Until now we had no way of telling ourselves apart. Now we do. It's been really interesting, revealing, and fun to see this split.
Show threadJohn RegehrMar 6
@shriramk @lindsey @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek based on available evidence so far (I'm enjoying the hell out of LLM-assisted programming) I'm not as much of the first kind as I had previously supposed.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@regehr @lindsey @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek
Over the past 3 months, I too am finding out I'm far less of the first kind than I thought. I don't know whether to be happy or sad about that, as someone who literally used to describe his job to others as "designer of programming languages".
Show threadJohn RegehrMar 6

@shriramk @lindsey @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek it is what it is, and I suspect we'll all feel differently (not sure how though) once the technology stabilizes and the novelty wears off.

but I am sure happy at the prospect that I might never have to fight with tikz, cmake, or some fiddly LLVM API the hard way again

Show threadJames Widman

@regehr @shriramk @lindsey @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek but all of the above-mentioned problems—

-APIs too fiddly (bc you don't have any say in which development efforts are funded)

-student-to-instructor ratio too high (bc you don't have the power to set limits & force hiring of instructors to match enrollment)

-not enough time for interesting research/experiments

...could be better solved with a union & no LLMs, than with no union & unregulated LLMs.

Mar 7 at 12:40amWeb