Worse it better for you when it meets your needs better.
I use a lot of my own software. Most of it is strictly worse both in terms of features and bugs than more intentional, planned projects. The reason I do it is because each of those tools solve my specific pain points in ways that makes my life better.
A concrete example: I have a personal dashboard. It was written by Claude in its entirety. I've skimmed the code, but no more than that. I don't review individual changes. It works for me. It pulls in my calendar, my fitbit data, my TODO list, various custom reminders to work around my tendency to procrastinate, it surfaces data from my coding agents, it provides a nice interface for me to browse various documentation I keep to hand, and a lot more.
I could write a "proper" dashboard system with cleanly pluggable modules. If I were to write it manually I probably would because I'd want something I could easily dip in and out of working on. But when I've started doing stuff like that in the past I quickly put it aside because it cost more effort than I got out of it. The benefit it provides is low enough that even a team effort would be difficult to make pay off.
Now that equation has fundamentally changed. If there's something I don't like, I tell Claude, and a few minutes - or more - later, I reload the dashboard and 90% of the time it's improved.
I have no illusions that code is generic enough to be usable for others, and that's fine, because the cost of maintaining it in my time is so low that I have no need to share that burden with others.
I think this will change how a lot of software is written. A "dashboard toolkit" for example would still have value to my "project". But for my agent to pull in and use to put together my dashboard faster.
A lot of "finished products" will be a lot less valuable because it'll become easier to get exactly what you want by having your agent assemble what is out there, and write what isn't out there from scratch.
alt Hacker News
Worse it better for you when it meets your needs better.
I use a lot of my own software. Most of it is strictly worse both in terms of features and bugs than more intentional, planned projects. The reason I do it is because each of those tools solve my specific pain points in ways that makes my life better.
A concrete example: I have a personal dashboard. It was written by Claude in its entirety. I've skimmed the code, but no more than that. I don't review individual changes. It works for me. It pulls in my calendar, my fitbit data, my TODO list, various custom reminders to work around my tendency to procrastinate, it surfaces data from my coding agents, it provides a nice interface for me to browse various documentation I keep to hand, and a lot more.
I could write a "proper" dashboard system with cleanly pluggable modules. If I were to write it manually I probably would because I'd want something I could easily dip in and out of working on. But when I've started doing stuff like that in the past I quickly put it aside because it cost more effort than I got out of it. The benefit it provides is low enough that even a team effort would be difficult to make pay off.
Now that equation has fundamentally changed. If there's something I don't like, I tell Claude, and a few minutes - or more - later, I reload the dashboard and 90% of the time it's improved.
I have no illusions that code is generic enough to be usable for others, and that's fine, because the cost of maintaining it in my time is so low that I have no need to share that burden with others.
I think this will change how a lot of software is written. A "dashboard toolkit" for example would still have value to my "project". But for my agent to pull in and use to put together my dashboard faster.
A lot of "finished products" will be a lot less valuable because it'll become easier to get exactly what you want by having your agent assemble what is out there, and write what isn't out there from scratch.