There's a big "if" of course, don't just throw your tests out of the window. But indeed, they need to bring value... so start by having really good tests.

A good explanation of why the concept is important, also comes with a nice list to get started.

The question is always valid. I like this particular answer.

A short list of common code smells that people need to know.

Both approaches have their pros and cons of course. Whatever you pick, it has to start with a care for quality shared within the team.

Definitely this, too often I see projects treating the technical debt as one-off large tasks. Really it's something you should deal with bite sized and over time.

I don't think I'm ready to give up just yet... Still, I recognise myself so much in this piece it feels like I could have written it (alas I don't write as well).

Nice illustration on how you can hunt down complexity in your codebases. It is obviously a slow process but comes with nice benefits.

Indeed feels bad when there are so many problems in the example of LLM based completion you put on the front page of your website...

Nice piece. In an age where we're drowning in bad quality content, those who make something with care will shine. They need to be supported.

If you expected another outcome on the average developer job from the LLM craze... you likely didn't pay attention enough.

It definitely has a point. The code output isn't really what matters. It is necessary at the end, but without the whole process it's worthless and don't empower anyone... It embodies many risks instead. I think my preferred quote in this article is this:
"We are teaching people that they are not worth to have decent, well-made things."

Interesting ways to look at processes and their outcomes. Depending on the mental model you won't ask the same questions when investigating incidents.

This is a good rant, I liked it. Lots of very good points in there of course. Again: the area where it's useful is very narrow. I also nails down the consequences of a profession going full in with those tools.

Somehow not surprising... There's an area where it works OK. That said, I think we don't have the right UX to exploit it safely and productively. The right practices still need to be found. This isn't helped by all the hype and crazy announcements.

You can't be in the backseat when using those tools. Otherwise you might feel productive by cranking out code but it can't do the essential tasks for you (most notably actual problem solving or architecture thinking). The quality would clearly suffer.

Such contributions still don't exist. Or their quality is so abyssal that they waste everyone's time. Don't fall for the marketing speak.

We often hear that question about the trade off between quality and cost. The question is badly framed though. If it's low quality it's requires more effort to add or change features... and so it's more expensive mid-term (not even long term).

Nice post. Explains well why the answer is not a number to target. You want to impact the distribution.

Interesting thinking around a portfolio of activities. You can prioritise differently within it to manage quality vs speed of delivery over time.