I ran into this tweet from Pieter Levels:

… I don't care what all the developer X accounts here say "noooo AI won't do anything to the SWE job market"

It's 100% coping, because it already did!

It wiped out the low to mid-tier of the SWE job market

You don't hire the low to mid-tier SWE because your existing engineers can do the same job by telling AI to do it…

While I 100% agree that AI will change the job market, I completely disagree that this will cause the wiping out of low to mid-level software development jobs.

I'm saying that because in the past month alone, we've hired a junior developer, a mid-level developer, and an intern.The existence of AI didn't change the economics of being able to hire developers at the start of their journey.What it did change, and this is a very significant difference, is what sort of tasks I can give them.

Our intern is a high school student, a very talented one naturally, but he still has a limited amount of knowledge about software and general development. To give some context, I've been literally building RavenDB since before he was born. So a single software project has had a longer lifetime than the intern.

So, what kind of tasks can I give someone like that? How do you bridge this gap in experience?

In the past, those would have been the most basic of tasks.Mostly stuff that is meant to teach them about the codebase and how to work with it, rather than bring concrete value. Still stuff that you need to do, of course, but nothing critical:

• Backport this fix and its related tests to the previous version. Call me if anything breaks.
• Make sure that we handle the Turkish I problem for all input fields.
• Add a new report to the system - here is an old one you can use as a template.
• Make this dialog mobile-friendly - here is how we did this before.

Today, the tasks he's been given are the same tasks I would have assigned to a mid-level developer four years ago. Build me a feature from A to X (with the expectation that for the last couple of steps, they would need additional guidance):

• Create a complete management dashboard.
• Build an import pipeline for handling uploaded files and ingesting them.
• Create a notification system for users (email, WhatsApp, SMS, etc) for important alerts.

In other words, in my experience, the intern would be able to complete at least basic functionality that would have been required from a mid-level developer just a few years ago.

Now, this doesn't mean that I can take a mid-level developer circa 2022 and replace them with a high school student with ChatGPT access.It does mean that I can drive the project quite far before I need a more experienced person to look into it.

And this is what I think you're going to see: a fundamental shift in the way we approach building software. You still need a human in the loop, but a lot of the groundwork can be delegated to the computer.

The growth from a junior to mid to senior, etc., is more about zooming out and looking over details such as architecture, longevity of the project, knowing not just "here is code that works" but "here's how you should approach this task”. Experience matters, and it shows quite clearly, but the rungs at the beginning of the ladder have significantly shrunk.

Consider the fact that Hello World is considered a major success when you start. Today, your basic Hello World app is responsive by design with scale-out capabilities. The bar for what counts as baseline functionality has jumped, but the difficulty of getting there is more or less the same.

In other words, if I were at the beginning of my career today, I would still choose to go into software development.And I think that the existence of AI just means that we have far better leverage to do even more amazing things.

The natural way for developers to test out code is in a simple console application. That is a simple, obvious, and really easy way to test things out. It is also one of those things that can completely mislead you about the actual realities of using a particular API.

For example, let’s take a look at what is probably the most trivial chatbot example:

var kernel = Kernel.CreateBuilder()
    .AddAzureOpenAIChatCompletion(...)
    .Build();


var chatService = kernel.GetRequiredService<IChatCompletionService>();
var chatHistory = new ChatHistory("You are a friendly chatbot.");


while (true)
{
    Console.Write("User: ");
    chatHistory.AddUserMessage(Console.ReadLine());
    var response = await chatService.GetChatMessageContentAsync(
        chatHistory, kernel: kernel);
    Console.WriteLine($"Chatbot: {response}");
    chatHistory.AddAssistantMessage(response.ToString());
}

If you run this code, you’ll be able to have a really interesting chat with the model, and it is pretty amazing that it takes less than 15 lines of code to make it happen.

What is really interesting here is that there is so much going on that you cannot really see. In particular, just how much state is being kept by this code without you actually realizing it.

Let’s look at the same code when we use a web backend for it:

app.MapPost("/chat/{sessionId}", async (string sessionId, 
    HttpContext context, IChatCompletionService chatService,
    ConcurrentDictionary<string, ChatHistory> sessions) =>
{
    var history = sessions.GetOrAdd(sessionId, _ => new ChatHistory(
        "You are a friendly chatbot."));


    var request = await context.Request.ReadFromJsonAsync<UserMessage>();


    history.AddUserMessage(request.Message);


    var response = await chatService.GetChatMessageContentAsync(history,
        kernel: kernel);
    history.AddAssistantMessage(response.ToString());


    return Results.Ok(new { Response = response.ToString() });
});

Suddenly, you can see that you have a lot of state to maintain here. In particular, we have the chat history (which we keep around between requests using a concurrent dictionary). We need that because the model requires us to send all the previous interactions we had in order to maintain context.

Note that for proper use, we’ll also need to deal with concurrency - for example, if two requests happen in the same session at the same time…

But that is still a fairly reasonable thing to do. Now, let’s see a slightly more complex example with tool calls, using the by-now venerable get weather call:

public class WeatherTools
{
    [KernelFunction("get_weather")]
    [Description("Get weather for a city")]
    public string GetWeather(string city) => $"Sunny in {city}.";
}
var builder = Kernel.CreateBuilder().AddAzureOpenAIChatCompletion(...);
builder.Plugins.AddFromType();
var kernel = builder.Build();
var chatService = kernel.GetRequiredService();
var settings = new OpenAIPromptExecutionSettings { 
ToolCallBehavior = ToolCallBehavior.AutoInvokeKernelFunctions 
};
var history = new ChatHistory("You are a friendly chatbot with tools.");
while (true)
{
    Console.Write("User: ");
    history.AddUserMessage(Console.ReadLine());
   var response = await chatService.GetChatMessageContentAsync(
history, settings, kernel);
    history.Add(response);
   Console.WriteLine($"Chatbot: {response.Content}");
}

The AutoInvokeKernelFunctions setting is doing a lot of work for you that isn’t immediately obvious. The catch here is that this is still pretty small & reasonable code. Now, try to imagine that you need a tool call such as: ReplaceProduct(old, new, reason).

The idea is that if we don’t have one type of milk, we can substitute it with another. But that requires user approval for the change. Conceptually, this is exactly the same as the previous tool call, and it is pretty trivial to implement that:

[KernelFunction("replace_product")]
[Description("Confirm product replacement with the user")]
public string ReplaceProduct(string old, string replacement, string reason)
{
    Console.WriteLine($"{old} -> {replacement}: {reason}? (yes/no)");
    return Console.ReadLine();
}

Now, in the same way I transformed the first code sample using the console into a POST request handler, try to imagine what you’ll need to write to send this to the browser for a user to confirm that.

That is when you realize that these 20 lines of code have been transformed into managing a lot of state for you. State that you are implicitly storing inside the execution stack.

You need to gather the tool name, ID and arguments, schlep them to the user, and in a new request get their response. Then you need to identify that this is a tool call answer and go back to the model. That is a separate state from handling a new input from the user.

None of the code is particularly crazy, of course, but you now need to handle the model, the backend, and the frontend states.

When looking at an API, I look to see how it handles actual realistic use cases, because it is so very easy to get caught up with the kind of console app demos - and it turns out that the execution stack can carry quite a lot of weight for you.

Imagine that you are given the following task, with a file like this:

Name,Department,Salary,JoinDate
John Smith,Marketing,75000,2023-01-15
Alice Johnson,Finance,82000,2022-06-22
Bob Lee,Sales,68000,2024-03-10
Emma Davis,HR,71000,2021-09-01

You want to turn that into a single list of all the terms in the (potentially very large) file.

In other words, you want to turn it into something like this:

[
  {"term": "Name", "position": 0, "length": 4},
  {"term": "Department", "position": 5, "length": 10},
                   ...
  {"term": "2021-09-01", "position": 160, "length": 10}
]

In other words, there is a single continuous array that references the entire data, and it is pretty efficient to do so. Why we do that doesn’t actually matter, but the critical aspect is that we observed poor performance and high memory usage when using this approach.

Let’s assume that we have a total of 10 million rows, or 40,000,000 items. Each item costs us 24 bytes (8 bytes for the Field, 8 bytes for the Position, 4 bytes for the Length, and 4 bytes for padding). So we end up with about 1GB in memory just to store things.

We can use Data-Oriented programming and split the data into individual arrays, like so:

public string[] Fields;
public long[] Positions;
public int[] Lengths;


public Item Get(int i) => new(Fields[i], Positions[i], Lengths[i]);

This saves us about 200 MB of memory, because we can now skip the padding costs by splitting the Item into its component parts.

Now, we didn’t account for the memory costs of the Field strings. And that is because all of them use the same exact string instances (only the field names are stored as strings).

In terms of memory usage, that means we don’t have 40 million string instances, but just 4.

The next optimization is to reduce the cost of memory even further, like so:

public string[] FieldsNames; // small array of the field names - len = 4
public byte[] FieldIndexes; // the index of the field name
public long[] Positions;
public int[] Lengths;


public Item Get(int i) => new(
         FieldsNames[FieldIndexes[i]], 
         Positions[i], 
         Lengths[i]
);

Because we know that we have a very small set of field names, we hold all of them in a single array and refer to them using an index (in this case, using a single byte only). In terms of memory usage, we dropped from about 1GB to less than half that.

So far, that is pretty much as expected. What was not expected was a significant drop in CPU usage because of this last change.

Can you figure out why this is the case?

The key here is this change:

- public string[] FieldNames;
+ public byte[] FieldIndexes;

The size of the array in our example is 40,000,000 elements. So this represents moving from an 8-byte reference to a 1-byte index in the FieldNames array. The reason for the memory savings is clear, but what is the reason for the CPU usage drop?

In this case, you have to understand the code that isn’t there. When we write in C#, we have a silent partner we have to deal with, the GC. So let’s consider what the GC needs to do when it encounters an array of strings:

The GC marks the array as reachable, then traverses and marks each referenced string object. It has to traverse the entire array, performing an operation for each value in the array, regardless of what that value is (or whether it has seen it before).

For that matter, even if the array is filled with null, the GC has to go through the array to verify that, which has a cost for large arrays.

In contrast, what does the GC need to do when it runs into an array of bytes:

The GC marks the array as reachable, and since it knows that there are no references to be found there, it is done.

In other words, this change in our data model led to the GC’s costs dropping significantly.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it, but it was quite a surprising result to run into when working on memory optimizations.

We have been working with AI models for development a lot lately (yes, just like everyone else). And I’m seesawing between “damn, that’s impressive” and “damn, brainless fool” quite often.

I want to share a few scenarios in which we employed AI to write code, how it turned out, and what I think about the future of AI-generated code and its impact on software development in general.

Porting code between languages & platforms

One place where we are trying to use an AI model is making sure that the RavenDB Client API is up to date across all platforms and languages. RavenDB has a really rich client API, offering features such as Unit of Work, change tracking, caching, etc. This is pretty unique in terms of database clients, I have to say.

That is, this approach comes with a substantial amount of work required. Looking at something like Postgres as a good example, the Postgres client is responsible for sending data to and from the database. The only reason you’d need to update it is if you change the wire format, and that is something you try very hard to never do (because then you have to update a bunch of stuff, deal with compatibility concerns, etc.).

The RavenDB Client API is handling a lot of details. That means that as a user, you get much more out of the box, but we have to spend a serious amount of time & effort maintaining all the various clients that we support. At last count, we had clients for about eight or so platforms (it gets hard to track 🙂). So adding a feature on the client side means that we have to develop the feature (usually in C#), then do the annoying part of going through all the clients we have and updating them.

You have to do that for each client, for each feature. That is… a lot to ask. And it is the kind of task that is really annoying. A developer tasked with this is basically handling copy/paste more than anything else. It also requires a deep understanding of each client API’s platform (Java and Python have very different best practices, for example). That includes how to write high-performance code, idiomatic code, and an easy-to-use API for the particular platform.

In other words, you need to be both an expert and a grunt worker at the same time. This is also one of those cases that is probably absolutely perfect for an AI model. You have a very clearly defined specification (the changes that you are porting from the source client, as a git diff), and you have tests to verify that it did the right thing (you need to port those, of course).

We tried that across a bunch of different clients, and the results are both encouraging and disheartening at the same time. On the one hand, it was able to do the bulk of the work quite nicely. And the amount of work to set it up is pretty small. The problem is that it gets close, but not quite. And taking it the remaining 10% to 15% of the way is still a task you need a developer for.

For example, when moving code from C# to TypeScript, we have to deal with things like C# having both sync and async APIs, while in TypeScript we only have an async API. It created both versions (and made them both async), or it somehow hallucinated the wrong endpoints (but mostly got things right).

The actual issue here is that it is too good: you let it run for a few minutes, then you have 2,000 lines of code to review. And that is actually a problem. Most of the code is annoyingly boilerplate, but you still need to review it. The AI is able to both generate more code than you can keep up with, as well as do some weird stuff, so you need to be careful with the review.

In other words, we saved a bunch of time, but we are still subject to Amdahl's Law. Previously, we were limited by code generation, but now we are limited by the code review. And that is not something you can throw at an agent (no, not even a different one to “verify” it, that is turtles all the way down).

Sample applications & throwaway code

It turns out that we need a lot of “just once” code. For example, whenever we have a new feature out, we want to demonstrate it, and a console application is usually not enough to actually showcase the full feature.

For example, a year and a half ago, we built Hugin, a RavenDB appliance running on a Raspberry Pi Zero. That allowed us to showcase how RavenDB can run on seriously constrained hardware, as well as perform complex full-text search queries at blazing speed.

To actually show that, we needed a full-blown application that would look nice, work on mobile, and have a bunch of features so we could actually show what we have been doing. We spent a couple of thousand to make that application, IIRC, and it took a few weeks to build, test, and verify.

Last week, I built three separate demo applications using what was effectively a full vibe-coding run. The idea was to get something running that I could plug in with less than 50 lines of code that actually did something useful. It worked; it makes for an amazing demo. It also meant that I was able to have a real-world use case for the API and get a lot of important insights about how we should surface this feature to our users.

The model also generated anywhere between 1,500 and 3,000 lines of code per sample app; with fewer than 100 lines of code being written by hand. The experience of being able to go and build such an app so quickly is an intoxicating one. It is also very much a false one. It’s very easy to get stuck way up in a dirty creek, and the AI doesn’t pack any sort of paddles.

For example, I’m not a front-end guy, so I pretty much have to trust the model to do sort of the right thing, but it got stuck a few times. The width of a particular element was about half of what it should be, and repeated attempts to fix that by telling the model to make it expand to the full width of the screen just didn’t “catch”.

It got to the point that I uploaded screenshots of the problem, which made the AI acknowledge the problem, and still not fix it. Side note: the fact that I can upload a screenshot and get it to understand what is going on there is a wow moment for me.

I finally just used dev tools and figured out that there was a root div limiting the width of everything. Once I pointed this out, the model was able to figure out what magic CSS was needed to make it work.

A demo application is a perfect stage for an AI model, because I don’t actually have any other concern other than “make it work”. I don’t care about the longevity of the code, performance, accessibility, or really any of the other “-ities” you usually need to deal with. In other words, it is a write-once, then basically never maintained or worked on.

I’m also perfectly fine with going with the UI and the architecture that the AI produced. If I actually cared exactly what the application looked like, it would be a whole different story. In my experience, actually getting the model to do exactly what I want is extremely complex and usually easier to do by hand.

For sample applications, I can skip actually reviewing all this code (exceeding 10KLOC) and accept that the end result is “good enough” for me to focus on the small bits that I wrote by hand. The same cannot be said for using AI coding in most other serious scenarios.

What used to be multiple weeks and thousands of dollars in spending has now become a single day of work, and less money in AI spend than the cost of the coffee drunk by the prompter in question. That is an amazing value for this use case, but the key for me is that this isn’t something I can safely generalize to other tasks.

Writing code is not even half the battle

It’s an old adage that you shouldn’t judge a developer by how fast they can produce code, because you end up reading code a lot more than writing it. Optimizing code generation is certainly going to save us some time, but not as much as I think people believe it would.

I cited Amdahl's Law above because it fits. For a piece of code to hit production, I would say that it needs to have gone through:

• Design & architecture
• Coding
• Code review
• Unit Testing
• Quality Assurance
• Security
• Performance
• Backward & forward compatibility evaluation

The interesting thing here is that when you have people doing everything, you’ll usually just see “coding” in the Gantt chart. A lot of those required tasks are done as part of the coding process. And those things take time. Generating code quickly doesn’t give you good design, and AI is really prone to making errors that a human would rarely make.

For example, in the sample apps I mentioned, we had backend and front-end apps, which naturally worked on the same domain. At one point, I counted and I had the following files:

• backend/models/order.ts
• frontend/models/api-order.ts
• frontend/models/order.ts
• frontend/models/view-order.ts

They all represented the same-ish concept in the application, were derived from one another, and needed to be kept in sync whenever I made a change to the model. I had to explicitly instruct the model to have a single representation of the model in the entire system.

The interesting bit was that as far as the model was concerned, that wasn’t a problem. Adding a field on the backend would generate a bunch of compilation errors that it would progressively fix each time. It didn’t care about that because it could work with it. But whenever I needed to make a change, I would keep hitting this as a stumbling block.

There are two types of AI code that you’ll see, I believe. The first is code that was generated by AI, but then was reviewed and approved by a person, including taking full ownership & accountability for it. The second is basically slop, stuff that works right now but is going to be instant technical debt from day one. The equivalent of taking payday loans to pay for a face tattoo to impress your high-school crush. In other words, it’s not even good from the first day, and you’ll pay for it in so many ways down the line.

AI-generated code has no intrinsic value

A long time ago (almost 25 years) .NET didn’t have generics. If you wanted to have a strongly typed collection, you had a template that would generate it for you. You could have a template that would read a SQL database schema and generate entire data layers for you, including strongly typed models, data access objects, etc. (That is far enough back that the Repository pattern wasn’t known). It took me a while to remember that the tool I used then was called CodeSmith; there are hardly any mentions of it, but you can see an old MSDN article from the Wayback Machine to get an idea of what it was like.

You could use this approach to generate a lot of code, but no one would ever consider that code to be an actual work product, in the same sense that I don’t consider compiled code to be something that I wrote (even if I sometimes browse the machine code and make changes to affect what machine code is being generated).

In the same sense, I think that AI-generated code is something that has no real value on its own. If I can regenerate that code very quickly, it has no actual value. It is only when that code has been properly reviewed & vetted that you can actually call it valuable.

Take a look at this 128,000-line pull request, for example. The only real option here is to say: “No, thanks”. That code isn’t adding any value, and even trying to read through it is a highly negative experience.

Other costs of code

Last week, I reviewed a pull request; here is what it looked like:

No, it isn’t AI-generated code; it is just a big feature. That took me half a day to go through, think it over, etc. And I reviewed only about half of it (the rest was UI code, where me looking at the code brings no value). In other words, I would say that a proper review takes an experienced developer roughly 1K - 1.5K lines of code/hour. That is probably an estimate on the high end because I was already familiar with the code and did the final review before approving it.

Important note: that is for code that is inherently pretty simple, in an architecture I’m very familiar with. Reviewing complex code, like this review, is literally weeks of effort.

I also haven’t touched on debugging the code, verifying that it does the right thing, and ensuring proper performance - all the other “-ities” that you need to make code worthy of production.

Cost of changing the code is proportional to its size

If you have an application that is a thousand lines of code, it is trivial to make changes. If it has 10,000 lines, that is harder. When you have hundreds of thousands of lines, with intersecting features & concerns, making sweeping changes is now a lot harder.

Consider coming to a completely new codebase of 50,000 lines of code, written by a previous developer of… dubious quality. That is the sort of thing that makes people quit their jobs. That is the sort of thing that we’ll have to face if we assume, “Oh, we’ll let the model generate the app”. I think you’ll find that almost every time, a developer team would rather just start from scratch than work on the technical debt associated with such a codebase.

The other side of AI code generation is that it starts to fail pretty badly as the size of the codebase approaches the context limits. A proper architecture would have separation of concerns to ensure that when humans work on the project, they can keep enough of the system in their heads.

Most of the model-generated code that I reviewed required explicitly instructing the model to separate concerns; otherwise, it kept trying to mix concerns all the time. That worked when the codebase was small enough for the model to keep track of it. This sort of approach makes the code much harder to maintain (and reliant on the model to actually make changes).

You still need to concern yourself with proper software architecture, even if the model is the one writing most of the code. Furthermore, you need to be on guard against the model generating what amounts to “fad of the day” type of code, often with no real relation to the actual requirement you are trying to solve.

AI Agent != Junior developer

It’s easy to think that using an AI agent is similar to having junior developers working for you. In many respects, there are a lot of similarities. In both cases, you need to carefully review their work, and they require proper guidance and attention.

A major difference is that the AI often has access to a vast repository of knowledge that it can use, and it works much faster. The AI is also, for lack of a better term, an idiot. It will do strange things (like rewriting half the codebase) or brute force whatever is needed to get the current task done, at the expense of future maintainability.

The latter problem is shared with junior developers, but they usually won’t hand you 5,000 lines of code that you first have to untangle (certainly not if you left them alone for the time it takes to get a cup of coffee).

The problem is that there is a tendency to accept generated code as given, maybe with a brief walkthrough or basic QA, before moving to the next step. That is a major issue if you go that route; it works for one-offs and maybe the initial stages of greenfield applications, but not at all for larger projects.

You should start by assuming that any code accepted into the project without human review is suspect, and treat it as such. Failing to do so will lead to ever-deeper cycles of technical debt. In the end, your one-month-old project becomes a legacy swamp that you cannot meaningfully change.

This story made the rounds a few times, talking about a non-technical attempt to write a SaaS system. It was impressive because it had gotten far enough along for people to pay for it, and that was when people actually looked at what was going on… and it didn’t end well.

As an industry, we are still trying to figure out what exactly this means, because AI coding is undeniably useful. It is also a tool that has specific use cases and limitations that are not at all apparent at first or even second glance.

AI-generated code vs. the compiler

Proponents of AI coding have a tendency to talk about AI-generated code in the same way they treat compiled code. The machine code that the compiler generates is an artifact and is not something we generally care about. That is because the compiler is deterministic and repeatable.

If two developers compile the same code on two different machines, they will end up with the same output. We even have a name for Reproducible Builds, which ensure that separate machines generate bit-for-bit identical output. Even when we don’t achieve that (getting to reproducible builds is a chore), the code is basically the same. The same code behaving differently after each compilation is a bug in the compiler, not something you accept.

That isn’t the same with AI. Running the same prompt twice will generate different output, sometimes significantly so. Running a full agentic process to generate a non-trivial application will result in compounding changes to the end result.

In other words, it isn’t that you can “program in English”, throw the prompts into source control, and treat the generated output as an artifact that you can regenerate at any time. That is why the generated source code needs to be checked into source control, reviewed, and generally maintained like manually written code.

The economic value of AI code gen is real, meaningful and big

I want to be clear here: I think that there is a lot of value in actually using AI to generate code - whether it’s suggesting a snippet that speeds up manual tasks or operating in agent mode and completing tasks more or less independently.

The fact that I can do in an hour what used to take days or weeks is a powerful force multiplier. The point I’m trying to make in this post is that this isn’t a magic wand. There is also all the other stuff you need to do, and it isn’t really optional for production code.

Summary

In short, you cannot replace your HR department with an IT team managing a bunch of GPUs. Certainly not now, and also not in any foreseeable future. It is going to have an impact, but the cries about “the sky is falling” that I hear about the future of software development as a profession are… about as real as your chance to get rich from paying large sums of money for “ownership” of a cryptographic hash of a digital ape drawing.

I wanted to add a data point about how AI usage is changing the way we write software. This story is from last week.

We recently had a problem getting two computers to communicate with each other. RavenDB uses X.509 certificates for authentication, and the scenario in question required us to handle trusting an unknown certificate. The idea was to accomplish this using a trusted intermediate certificate. The problem was that we couldn’t get our code (using .NET) to send the intermediate certificate to the other side.

I tried using two different models and posed the question in several different ways. It kept circling back to the same proposed solution (using X509CertificateCollection with both the client certificate and its signer added to it), but the other side would only ever see the leaf certificate, not the intermediate one.

I know that you can do that using TLS, because I have had to deal with such issues before. At that point, I gave up on using an AI model and just turned to Google to search for what I wanted to do. I found some old GitHub issues discussing this (from 2018!) and was then able to find the exact magic incantation needed to make it work.

For posterity’s sake, here is what you need to do:

var options = new SslClientAuthenticationOptions
{
   TargetHost = "localhost",
   ClientCertificates = collection,
   EnabledSslProtocols = SslProtocols.Tls13,
   ClientCertificateContext = SslStreamCertificateContext.Create(
clientCert, 
[intermdiateCertificate], 
offline: true)
};

The key aspect from my perspective is that the model was not only useless, but also actively hostile to my attempt to solve the problem. It’s often helpful, but we need to know when to cut it off and just solve things ourselves.

You are assigned the following story:

As a helpdesk manager,I want the system to automatically assign incoming tickets to available agents in a round-robin manner,so that tickets are distributed evenly and handled efficiently.

That sounds like a pretty simple task, right? Now, let’s get to implementing this. A junior developer will read this story and realize that you need to know who the available agents are and who the last assigned agent was.

Then you realize that you also need to handle more complex scenarios:

• What if you have a lot of available agents?
• What if we have two concurrent tickets at the same time?
• Where do you keep the last assigned agent?
• What if an agent goes unavailable and then becomes available again?
• How do you handle a lot of load on the system?
• What happens if we need to assign a ticket in a distributed manner?

There are answers to each one of those, mind you. It is just that it turns out that round-robin distribution is actually really hard if you want to do that properly.

A junior developer will try to implement the story as written, maybe they know enough to recognize the challenges listed above. If they are good, they will also be able to solve those issues.

A senior developer, in my eyes, would write the following instead:

from Agents
where State = 'Available'
order by random()
limit 1

In other words, instead of trying to do “proper” round-robin distribution, with all its attendant challenges, we can achieve pretty much the same thing with far less hassle.

The key difference here is that you need to challenge the requirements, because by changing what you need to do, you can greatly simplify your problem. You end up with a great solution that meets all the users’ requirements (in contrast to what was written in the user story) and introduces almost no complexity.

A good way to do this, by the way, is to reject the story outright and talk to its owner. “You say round-robin here, can I do that randomly? It ends up being the same in the end.”

There may be a reason that mandates the round-robin nature, but if there is such a reason, I can absolutely guarantee that there are additional constraints here that are not expressed in the round-robin description.

That aspect, challenging the problem itself, is a key part of what makes a senior developer more productive. Not just understanding the problem space, but reframing it to make it easier to solve while delivering the same end result.

I build databases for a living, and as such, I spend a great deal of time working with file I/O. Since the database I build is cross-platform, I run into different I/O behavior on different operating systems all the time.

One of the more annoying aspects for a database developer is handling file metadata changes between Windows and Linux (and POSIX in general). You can read more about the details in this excellent post by Dan Luu.

On Windows, the creation of a new file is a reliable operation.If the operation succeeds, the file exists. Note that this is distinct from when you write data to it, which is a whole different topic. The key here is that file creation, size changes, and renames are things that you can rely on.

On Linux, on the other hand, you also need to sync the parent directory (potentially all the way up the tree, by the way). The details depend on what exact file system you have mounted and exactly which flags you are using, etc.

This difference in behavior between Windows and Linux is probably driven by the expected usage, or maybe the expected usage drove the behavior. I guess it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem.

It’s really common in Linux to deal with a lot of small files that are held open for a very short time, while on Windows, the recommended approach is to create file handles on an as-needed basis and hold them.

The cost of CreateFile() on Windows is significantly higher than open() on Linux. On Windows, each file open will typically run through a bunch of filters (antivirus, for example), which adds significant costs.

Usually, when this topic is raised, the main drive is that Linux is faster than Windows. From my perspective, the actual issue is more complex. When using Windows, your file I/O operations are much easier to reason about than when using Linux. The reason behind that, mind you, is probably directly related to the performance differences between the operating systems.

In both cases, by the way, the weight of legacy usage and inertia means that we cannot get anything better these days and will likely be stuck with the same underlying issues forever.

Can you imagine what kind of API we would have if we had a new design as a clean slate on today’s hardware?

I wrote the following code:

if (_items is [var single])
{
    // no point invoking thread pool
    single.Run();
}

And I was very proud of myself for writing such pretty and succinct C# code.

Then I got a runtime error:

I asked Grok about this because I did not expect this, and got the following reply:

No, if (_items is [var single]) in C# does not match a null value. This pattern checks if _items is a single-element array and binds the element to single. If _items is null, the pattern match fails, and the condition evaluates to false.

However, the output clearly disagreed with both Grok’s and my expectations. I decided to put that into SharpLab, which can quickly help identify what is going on behind the scenes for such syntax.

You can see three versions of this check in the associated link.

if(strs is [var s]) // no null check


if(strs is [string s]) //  if (s != null)


if(strs is [{} s]) //  if (s != null)

Turns out that there is a distinction between a var pattern (allows null) and a non-var pattern. The third option is the non-null pattern, which does the same thing (but doesn’t require redundant type specification). Usually var vs. type is a readability distinction, but here we have a real difference in behavior.

Note that when I asked the LLM about it, I got the wrong answer. Luckily, I could get a verified answer by just checking the compiler output, and only then head out to the C# spec to see if this is a compiler bug or just a misunderstanding.

RavenDB is a pretty big system, with well over 1 million lines of code. Recently, I had to deal with an interesting problem. I had a CancellationToken at hand, which I expected to remain valid for the duration of the full operation.

However, something sneaky was going on there. Something was cancelling my CancelationToken, and not in an expected manner. At last count, I had roughly 2 bazillion CancelationTokens in the RavenDB codebase. Per request, per database, global to the server process, time-based, operation-based, etc., etc.

Figuring out why the CancelationToken was canceled turned out to be a chore. Instead of reading through the code, I cheated.

token.Register(() =>
{
    Console.WriteLine("Cancelled!" + Environment.StackTrace);
});

I ran the code, tracked back exactly who was calling cancel, and realized that I had mixed the request-based token with the database-level token. A single line fix in the end. Until I knew where it was, it was very challenging to figure it out.

This approach, making the code tell you what is wrong, is an awesome way to cut down debugging time by a lot.

Cloud service costs can often be confusing and unpredictable.RavenDB Cloud's new feature addresses this by providing real-time cost predictions whenever you make changes to your system. This transparency allows you to make informed choices about your cluster and easily incorporate cost considerations into your decision loop to take control of your cloud budget..

The implementation of cost transparency and visibility features within RavenDB Cloud has an outsized impact on cost management and FinOps practices. It empowers you to make informed decisions, optimize spending, and achieve better financial control.

The idea is to make it easier for you to spend your money wisely. I’m really happy with this feature. It may seem small, but it will make a difference. It also fits very well with our overall philosophy that we should take the burden of complexity off your shoulders and onto ours.