Be careful what you wish for, because your wish may come true.

Architecture Weekly's publication is a central hub for architecture enthusiasts, offering insights into architectural design, urban planning, and sustainable architecture practices. Through articles, case studies, and architectural critiques, Architecture Weekly offers insights into iconic buildings, architectural trends, and innovative design solutions. Readers can learn about architectural history, design principles, and environmental sustainability initiatives to gain a deeper understanding of the built environment and its impact on society. Additionally, Architecture Weekly provides updates on the latest architectural projects, design competitions, and industry events to help architects and designers stay informed and inspired.

Architecture Weekly

A critical reflection on the 'end of coding' narrative driven by LLM hype. The author argues that the current chat/prompt-based approach to development is a transitional phase, not the final form. Drawing parallels to Java's introduction in 1995 and Joel Spolsky's 'JavaSchools' critique, the piece contends that abstractions have always evolved to reduce cognitive load without eliminating engineering. The real danger isn't just losing coding skills—it's outsourcing thinking entirely to statistical systems that produce mediocre, average outputs. The author calls for mature industry discussion about reshaping the SDLC, building better tools, and ensuring humans remain responsible for outcomes rather than just outputs.

The End of Coding? Wrong Question

the whole AI coding thing is a way to enforce developers (or to break them mentally) so they jump on the AI hype train, all the scare “you will be obsolete if you don’t learn how to leverage AI” is total marketing BS so the managers and sales can earn more, sell more and brag more.
I am not against AI but i am heavily put-off with the hype and hysteria because rich people want to make AI revolution be something that it isn’t so they fallback to some other coercing tactics (scare the you will become obsolete as a developer etc.) because people are not easily hyped to put extra effort for 1% to get even richer.
However, if you think critically, which you should - you will see that the opposite is true, developers are still highly sought as someone has to create and maintan AI, orchestrate it and make it work, and nobody is saying that you will have to stop to code. Maybe your job will become chatting with bots, but nobody is stopping you to code in your free time (well, yeah its more of a regular job than passion like before, but if you like to code, you will find time to do it).
I use AI and I see the benefits (I just hate the hype and unrealistic expectations set by it), but I still want and I am still programming and writing code. Probably always will.

There is a new profession - dude who can fix after AI, vibe coders and no code magicians

“outsourcing thinking entirely to statistical systems that produce mediocre, average outputs” Well put!

All these AI plans, systems, tools, and “frameworks to make AI work for you” feel more like people scrambling to stay relevant than anything else.
It’s a kind of desperate attempt to make sense of a world where humans might not be needed in the same way anymore.
A lot of the LLM conversation is just hype. Not because the tech isn’t real—but because the narrative keeps people busy. AGI isn’t necessarily the real goal… the hype around it is.
And maybe that’s the point: AI doesn’t need to think like a human. It’s actually more effective when it doesn’t. It thinks like a machine—and that’s where its advantage comes from.
The whole fear around “losing skills” and being replaced? That’s part of the same story. If machines can already do the work, then traditional skills stop being the bottleneck.
Even the idea of building better tools for humans starts to feel outdated. If AI can already perform the tasks those tools were designed for, then eventually, the tools themselves become unnecessary.
At that point, it’s not about improving workflows anymore—it’s just about connecting the pieces and letting the system run.

I think this is the much better framing.
“The end of coding” was always too shallow as a question. The more interesting question is what parts of software development are being abstracted away, and what new responsibilities show up when that happens.
We’ve been here before, just in different forms. Higher-level languages, frameworks, cloud platforms, no-code tools, every wave reduced some kinds of manual effort, but none removed the need for people who can actually reason about systems, tradeoffs, failure modes, and outcomes. That part doesn’t go away just because the interface becomes a chat box.