> I chose this words because I don't think good code is nearly as expensive with coding agents as it was without them.

Still navigating this territory, but I think a lot of people are getting caught up on the idea that producing code is simply a matter of typing it at the keyboard.

One of the benefits of something like Claude Code isn't just the code it produces, but the ability to quickly try out ideas, get some feedback, AND THEN write the good code.

> than the more aesthetically pleasing

Agreed. What even is "good" code? So much of the bad code I write isn't necessarily that it's ugly, it's bad because it misses the mark. Because I made too many assumptions and didn't take the time to actual learn the domain. If I can eek out even a few more hours a week to actually build worthwhile solutions because I was able to focus a bit more, it's a win to me. My users in particular have a really difficult time imagining features without actually seeing them. They have a hard to articulating what's wrong/right without something tangible in front of them. It would be hard to argue that having the ability to quickly prototype and demo features to people is a bad thing.