George Prokopakis (@gprok) header
George Prokopakis (@gprok) profile picture

Software developer, CS instructor, Unix and coffee addicted. Ars longa, vita brevis. Memento Mori.

Athens, Greece
Joined April 2009
Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)Photo by George Prokopakis (@gprok)
George Prokopakis retweeted
This is exactly what I see everywhere I go and what I hear from everyone I talk to: they need more people, not fewer. In fact, many companies are telling me they are stuck because they can't find enough talent in the market. They are already using the latest-and-greatest AI-thingies out there, but they don't have enough warm bodies to operate them. These agents aren't magic. They, for the most part, aren't autonomous. They are cool and all, but they need people who know their stuff. This is even more acute for building software. Yes, anyone can vibe-code simple apps here and there today, but building working software for thousands of user is still very demanding, and agentic coding helps but doesn't work without experts driving it.
Unpopular opinion: In 5 years, we'll need more software engineers than we do today. Not fewer. Everyone is calculating how many developers AI can replace. If a team of 3 can now do the work of 10, surely the other 7 are out of a job? I think that completely misses what's about to happen. For decades, the biggest constraint on software wasn't the lack of problems worth solving. It was the cost of solving them. Millions of businesses still run on spreadsheets, emails, WhatsApp messages, and outdated software. Not because they're happy with it, but because spending $200,000 on a custom system never made financial sense. Now imagine that same system costs $20,000. Suddenly, millions of businesses that couldn't afford software development become potential customers. Projects that were never viable become viable. Companies that already build software can afford to do ten times more. And here's the part people underestimate: the cheaper software becomes, the more reasons we'll find to build it. Of course, some jobs will disappear. Certain tasks that once required entire teams will be handled by a single engineer. But assuming the amount of software the world needs is fixed is a pretty strange assumption, especially in an industry where we've barely scratched the surface of what can be automated. I could be wrong, but I think we're heading toward an explosion in software demand, not the death of software engineering. We're confusing the declining cost of writing code with the declining demand for software engineers. They're not the same thing.
78
45
8
575
45,838
George Prokopakis retweeted
"Almost every software development organization has at least one developer who takes tactical programming to the extreme: a tactical tornado. The tactical tornado is a prolific programmer who pumps out code far faster than others but works in a totally tactical fashion. [...] In some organizations, management treats tactical tornadoes as heroes. "However, tactical tornadoes leave behind a wake of destruction. They are rarely considered heroes by the engineers who must work with their code in the future. Typically, other engineers must clean up the messes left behind by the tactical tornado, which makes it appear that those engineers (who are the real heroes) are making slower progress." @JohnOusterhout, A Philosophy Of Software Design, 2018 Sound familiar?
202
228
42
3,397
221,711
George Prokopakis retweeted
Is this the future of software engineering? AI has made code generation dramatically faster. But that doesn’t necessarily mean software development is getting faster. That was one of the most interesting points from my conversation with Kirill Skrygan, CEO of JetBrains at the launch of JetBrains Air last week. As coding accelerates, the bottlenecks are moving elsewhere: code review, technical debt, maintainability, observability, knowledge sharing, governance and understanding whether AI is actually delivering ROI. We discuss why solving those problems requires thinking beyond tools for individual developers, and instead looking at the whole software engineering organisation, from ICs and team leads through to engineering directors and CTOs. It’s an interesting perspective on where AI-assisted software development goes next. In the attached video, Kirill explains what JetBrains Air is and the problems it’s designed to solve. In the full interview, we go deeper into his experience with AI and agentic coding, how software engineering is changing, and why JetBrains believes the next generation of tooling needs to support the whole engineering organisation, not just the individual developer. You can watch the full interview on YouTube: youtu.be/SY3XJnLIriI
3
1
2
29
5,774
George Prokopakis retweeted
Experience gives perspective. Programming is not dead, and never will be. It's late September 2026. Sometime in September 1976, just after I entered college, I wrote and ran my first serious program. I have now been a programmer for literally 50 years. And man, I have seen it *all*. Punched cards to glass ttys on minicomputers to workstations to the earliest micros. I've written business software, communication programs, development tools, games, language implementations, kernel device drivers, graphics libraries, a few critical pieces of infrastructure, and all manner of odd programs for which there is no taxonomy. Coded in a score of languages some of which are now forgotten. I've run over 70 open-source projects and contributed to at least as many more. Along the way I noticed a few things, and wrote about them, and that made me famous. But I'm not here to write about that today. I'm here to write about what it means to be a programmer and a technologist with the Singularity upon us. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told "programming is over". You kids may think this is a new claim that came into the world with LLMs. Hah! There's been that kind of talk at every step function in the quality of our programming tools. I first heard it when compilers were replacing hand-hacked assembler in the early 1980s, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if somebody said it earlier when in-memory code replaced plugboards. One constant amidst all this change is that the intentions in a user's head do not magically turn into executable instructions that a computer can run. Another constant is the mindset of the people who specialize in bridging the gap between wish and algorithm. A programmer is a programmer is a programmer - the tools are secondary. "But it's different this time!" some people will say, "AIs are superhuman now!" So? What did you think the optimization stage of a compiler was, chopped liver? We've been relying on tools that exceeded human capabilities all along - we built them precisely because our meatbrains could not otherwise keep up with the demands of the job. It's been a hell of a ride, that 50 years. I've succeeded and failed and succeeded again. Done a lot of work I'm proud of. Built at least a few things that look like they're going to last. None of that goes away because, hypothetically, an AI might have made me faster. The work is never done, even if the tools can talk to us now. Because intentions still have to be communicated; people who specialize in that and develop right mindset to do it still have a major advantage over people who don't. If you're feeling depressed because you spent years or decades developing hand-coding skills that are obsolete now? Buck up. You still have the most important asset - a mind that knows how to think that way. I'm facing the winds of the Singularity with a smile. Because 50 years and I'm still standing - still shipping code that people can use, still learning, still refusing to be paralyzed by the pace of change. The best therapy for your uncertainty? Get to work on something.
139
583
98
3,051
186,865
JetBrains GameDev Day 2026September 28, 2026 A full day of practical talks for people building games, engines, tools, and production pipelines. lp.jetbrains.com/gamedev-day…
2
65
I'm a big fan of learning by doing. You learn more by active engagement rather than passive listening. -- Dr. Terrence Sejnowski
21
"We're at a beginning, not an end, of software development. There's so much more to build. Let's get to work." And for us, teachers, more work is required to prepare future developers. stackoverflow.blog/2026/02/0…
27
George Prokopakis retweeted
Someone new to coding showed me their vibe-coded project. 90,000 lines of code. They were proud. I didn't know where to start. 🧵
24
23
4
233
69,232
And the answer is: you need to understand systems. Which means you need to understand code. Your goal should be to own a product end-to-end, from requirements to production. medium.com/@gratitudedriven/…
1
1
20
Every major abstraction — compilers, high-level languages, object-oriented programming — was pitched as making software engineers obsolete. But in reality, the demand for people who understand systems didn’t disappear, it actually grew.
1
15
So you’re not too late, and don’t let the haters get you down.
14
George Prokopakis retweeted
I recently received an email titled “An 18-year-old’s dilemma: Too late to contribute to AI?” Its author, who gave me permission to share this, is preparing for college. He is worried that by the time he graduates, AI will be so good there’s no meaningful work left for him to do to contribute to humanity, and he will just live on Universal Basic Income (UBI). I wrote back to reassure him that there will still be plenty of work he can do for decades hence, and encouraged him to work hard and learn to build with AI. But this conversation struck me as an example of how harmful hype about AI is. Yes, AI is amazingly intelligent, and I’m thrilled to be using it every day to build things I couldn’t have built a year ago. At the same time, AI is still incredibly dumb, and I would not trust a frontier LLM by itself to prioritize my calendar, carry out resumé screening, or choose what to order for lunch — tasks that businesses routinely ask junior personnel to do. Yes, we can build AI software to do these tasks. For example, after a lot of customization work, one of my teams now has a decent AI resumé screening assistant. But the point is it took a lot of customization. Even though LLMs can handle a much more general set of tasks than previous iterations of AI technology, compared to what humans can do, they are still highly specialized. They’re much better at working with text than other modalities, still require lots of custom engineering to get it the right context for a particular application, and we have few tools — and only inefficient ones — for getting our systems to learn from feedback and repeated exposure to a specific task (such as screening resumés for a particular role). AI has stark limitations, and despite rapid improvements, it will remain limited compared to humans for a long time. AI is amazing, but it has unfortunately been hyped up to be even more amazing than it is. A pernicious aspect of hype is that it often contains an element of truth, but not to the degree of the hype. This makes it difficult for nontechnical people to discern where the truth really is. Modern AI is a general purpose technology that is enabling many applications, but AI that can do any intellectual tasks that a human can (a popular definition for AGI) is still decades away or longer. This nuanced message that AI is general, but not that general, often is lost in the noise of today's media environment. Similarly, the progress of frontier models is amazing! But not so amazing that they’ll be able to do everything under the sun without a lot of customization. I know VC investors who are scared to invest in application-layer startups because they are worried that frontier AI model companies will quickly wipe out all of these businesses by improving their models. While some thin wrappers around LLMs no doubt will be replaced, there also remains a huge set of valuable applications that the current trajectory of progress of frontier models won’t displace for a long time. Without accurate information about the current state of AI and how it is likely to progress, some young people will decide not to enter AI because think think AGI leaves them no meaningful role, or decide not to learn how to code because they fear AI will automate it — right when it is the best time ever to join our field. Let us all keep working to get to a precise understanding of what’s actually possible, and keep building! [Original text: deeplearning.ai/the-batch/is… ]
139
527
89
2,482
305,041
On Friday, Nov 14, 18:00-20:30 EET we will host at New York College, Kallithea building, A1 auditorium, the PyData Piraeus Meetup, presenting: Large Language Models in Knowledge Graphs, and Information Retrieval and Matching at Scale meetup.com/pydata-piraeus/ev…
52
George Prokopakis retweeted
The 3rd edition of my book Deep Learning with Python is being printed right now, and will be in bookstores within 2 weeks. You can order it now from Amazon or from Manning. This time, we're also releasing the whole thing as a 100% free website. I don't care if it reduces book sales, I think it's the best deep learning intro around, and more people should be able to read it.
324
1,028
124
6,343
1,019,252