4 Comments
User's avatar
Niels Pflaeging | Red42's avatar

Great article.

While the diagnosis is correct, I think that you are missing one thing:

Time orientation. It's the only way to get to actual flow, in software development (and elsewhere: https://betacodex.org/white-papers/paper/introducing-time-oriented-software-development-26

Here's an article about how this connects with AI-aided development and the "loops" you mentioned. https://nielspflaeging.substack.com/p/ai-aided-software-development-needs

Markus Andrezak's avatar

Hi Niels, thx! I‘ll look into it and reply. Thanks for the hint.

Bruno's avatar

Love it.

I'd like to add one more aspect, that I didn't read: The review in breakpoint one is not just stressed by the significantly raised volume. It's also stressed by the no longer exiting evaluation-while-writing that humans did. That typically was the first, and maybe crucial, step of answering the question: "Does this make sense?" - which was applied keyword-by-keyword, line-by-line, function-by-function, commit-by-commit on different levels of abstraction, even before any PR - or whatever process triggered a review - was submitted. The absence of it may be a even larger issue than the increased volume.

Markus Andrezak's avatar

Yes, you’re right. It’s a consequence of what I wrote on option storming. But then it’s still a question if everything on that level is always on the same CI loop orbits even reviews rather on demo / prototype level in more sloppy quality.

That would still be a choice per org and per feature / product etc.

But by standard you are 100% right. Thanks for pointing that out.