>AI is not real coding any more than The Sims is homemaking.

Your analogy is bad. The programmer and the AI both produce working code. The other poster's response was correct.

The AI does not, in fact, produce working code.

I believe that someone can get it to produce working code. Whenever I press the button though, I'm not getting great results.

I can't speak personally to what it was like to be a C developer in the early days of that language, but when I started out as a Ruby on Rails developer over a decade ago I was definitely told by some people that it didn't count as 'real programing' because of how much was abstracted away by the framework.

I have some bad news for you

Mocking? I'm quoting exactly the sort of thing that used to be said in earnest in the 80s and 90s. What you're doing now is exactly the same thing, there's no difference at all. Its the same reaction borne from the same old man instinct to bitch about the kids going soft. Yawn.

Both Algol and Lisp were from the 60s. I think programmers and computers scientists were already acquainted with high level programming languages enough to not equate using C as going soft.

Also software was always about domain knowledge and formal reasoning. Coding is just notation. Someone may like paper and pen, and someone may like a typewriter, but ultimately it’s the writing that matters. Correctness of a program does not depends on the language (and the cpu only manipulate electric flow).

I argue against AI because most of its users don’t care about the correctness of their code. They just want to produce lots of it (the resurgence of the flawed LoC metric as a badge of honor).

> I argue against AI because most of its users don’t care about the correctness of their code.

This is remarkably sloppy for someone who codes. No facts, just opinion, claimed with confidence.

> No facts, just opinion, claimed with confidence

Strong opinions, loosely held.

What I’ve seen seems to confirm that opinion, so I’m still holding on to it.

> Strong opinions, loosely held.

Yes doctor, but enough about my stool.

> Both Algol and Lisp were from the 60s. I think programmers and computers scientists were already acquainted with high level programming languages enough to not equate using C as going soft

Most programmers didn't have access to anything so fancy as those, in fact most programmers considered access to a C compiler to be an extravagant flex well into the 80s. By the 90s they were well available and you had a new generation of programmers that started out with C, encountering older programmers who started out writing assembly for their z80s, the latter of whole were constantly sneering at kids going soft.