Post #1123582
2026-04-01 10:20 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@giacomo@snac.tesio.it 2026-04-01 11:30
@ahltorp@mastodon.nu Boilerplate is a side effect of excessive abstraction. Now think about it for a second. 😉 (btw, did you consider an April fool for Anthropic's leak? It would be great PR.. after.) @bodil@treehouse.systems @tiotasram@kolektiva.social
-
@benjohn@todon.nl 2026-04-01 11:29
@ahltorp @bodil :-) I think a good slice of computer science does. However, “the market” does not. It operates to extract profits. Not to simplify, reduce barriers, improve access, or clarify.
-
@mark@mastodon.fixermark.com 2026-04-01 14:29
@ahltorp @bodil I've seen a pretty good argument that basically goes like this: Copilot seems to be good in your org because your org is full of boilerplate Your org is full of boilerplate because most software that solves real problems in the amount of time people are willing to spend money to solve them... Is full of boilerplate. We can generally only remove the boilerplate once we have the problem domain and solution shape firmly in view, and that usually happens after we get to a working prototype, at which point the money folk immediately cut the budget because the people in the not-in-a-computer world see the problem as solved now.
-
@Jer@chirp.enworld.org 2026-04-03 13:36
@ahltorp @bodil This is exactly it. Programming languages should be working to remove repetitive boilerplate and cut-and-paste activities. Like when we went from assembler to structured programming - instead of writing the same jump patterns over and over again, come up with a language that does it in a few keystrokes and let the compiler expand it LLMs are just cutting-and-pasting shit all over the place. It's a massive step backwards for software dev and it infuriates me to see it embraced