alt Hacker NewsNot sure if “code has always been expensive” is the right framing.
Typing out a few hundred lines of code was never the real bottleneck. What was expensive was everything around it: making it correct, making it maintainable (often underestimated), coordinating across teams and supporting it long term.
You can also overshoot: Testing every possible path, validating across every platform, or routing every change through layers of organizational approval can multiply costs quickly. At some point, process (not code) becomes the dominant expense.
What LLMs clearly reduce is the short-term cost of producing working code. That part is dramatically cheaper.
The long-term effect is less clear. If we generate more code, faster, does that reduce cost or just increase the surface area we need to maintain, test, secure, and reason about later?
Historically, most of software’s cost has lived in maintenance and coordination, not in keystrokes. It will take real longitudinal data to see whether LLMs meaningfully change that, or just shift where the cost shows up.
Replies
> The long-term effect is less clear. If we generate more code, faster, does that reduce cost or just increase the surface area we need to maintain, test, secure, and reason about later?
My take is that the focus is mostly oriented towards code, but in my experience everything around code got cheaper too. In my particular case, I do coding, I do DevOps, I do second level support, I do data analysis. Every single task I have to do is now seriously augmented by AI.
In my last performance review, my manager was actually surprised when I told him that I am now more a manager of my own work than actually doing the work.
This also means my productivity is now probably around 2.5x what it was a couple of years ago.
Honestly, if I would just get what the end user “really wants” (they often don’t even know) that would save a huge percentage of the overall cost, and that’s not code that’s human nature.
code was expensive, is and will be expensive. the real cost is hidden. takes a mature eye to see a codebase that works and is not a dumpster fire.
correctness (doing what its supposed to, nothing else), maintainability (accommodating unknown future changes), cost ( deployment, refactoring, integrations) and performance (making the right tradeoffs) are not obvious, don't come naturally till you burn your fingers and differentiate a good from a horrible end result.
I don’t understand why you would agree with the entire article yet frame it as disagreement.
"What was expensive was everything around it" - when I say that code has always been expensive that's part of what I'm factoring in.
But even typing that first few hundred lines used to have a much more significant cost attached.
I just pasted 256 lines of JavaScript into the 2000s-era SLOCount tool (classic Perl, I have a WebAssembly hosted version here https://tools.simonwillison.net/sloccount) and it gave me a 2000s-era cost estimate of $6,461.
I wouldn't take that number with anything less than a giant fist of salt, but there you have it.