The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE).
Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.
Before you bury me for that "Not writing code anymore" statement my current workflow is literally just talking to Claude via Wispr Flow (mic) whether it's describing what we need to implement or reviewing what Claude Code implemented.
> The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE).
>
> Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.
So maybe the text area in your IDE becomes read-only. Even when not actively debugging, you still need to read code and efficiently browse through it as you review it. Because you always review code, don't you? Don't you??
> Historically, IDEs optimized for a tight inner loop: open files → edit → build → debug → repeat. The “death” argument is that this loop is no longer the dominant unit of productivity once agents can execute most of it autonomously.
And the argument is rendered moot because this loop was never considered the unit of productivity. There was always a whole planning and design phase that was conducted before this one. And for some tasks, it was not a loop, just the sequence edit → build sequence.
The article seems like written by someone who has never used an IDE professionally, just watch someone using it for 20 seconds through a window.
So, so, so sick of AI everywhere. It feel like a layer of sludge covering everything. I hate it.
I'm sure you're aware AI is not going anywhere. What's your plan? Do you think you're going to adapt?
The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE).
Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.
Before you bury me for that "Not writing code anymore" statement my current workflow is literally just talking to Claude via Wispr Flow (mic) whether it's describing what we need to implement or reviewing what Claude Code implemented.
Still building? Yes - Still writing? No
> The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE). > > Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.
So maybe the text area in your IDE becomes read-only. Even when not actively debugging, you still need to read code and efficiently browse through it as you review it. Because you always review code, don't you? Don't you??
> Historically, IDEs optimized for a tight inner loop: open files → edit → build → debug → repeat. The “death” argument is that this loop is no longer the dominant unit of productivity once agents can execute most of it autonomously.
And the argument is rendered moot because this loop was never considered the unit of productivity. There was always a whole planning and design phase that was conducted before this one. And for some tasks, it was not a loop, just the sequence edit → build sequence.
The article seems like written by someone who has never used an IDE professionally, just watch someone using it for 20 seconds through a window.
The hypest of hypers seem to be those who are new to the field or were never responsible for long term outcomes.