Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I think the Japanese built a "software factory" in the 1980's, but it was staffed with humans, not LLMs (which obviously didn't exist back then).
So to say that no one has built a software factory is a strong statement...and factually incorrect.
by hn_submit - The idea of a software factory long predates LLMs or any other form of automated full-program generation. The idea was to take full CI/CD pipelines that allow for rapid deployment of new components into a running system a la popular SaaS providers and web platforms that are usually single vendor or even single application, and extend the idea to a centralized production facility used by many different application vendors and consumer endpoints. Kessel Run in the US Air Force is the largest widely-touted success story I'm aware of, but I'm sure there must have been others.
Think of Netflix and Google sharing the same developer VDIs, build tooling, unit test framework, E2E test framework, promotion gates, and possibly even a common runtime platform. It's not something the commercial world tends to think much about, but in the military world you have many different vendor collaborating on a single C2 or comms system, but individually building their own production lines for each component. Centralize that and you can reduce procurement costs by de-duplicating effort, at least in theory.
Plenty of these have been built. I can buy that no one has built a fully-automated set of agents running on common compute, storage, and network substrates that can create, verify, and ship arbitrary software from vague natural language desirements alone, but that isn't the same thing and it's kind of a shame they decided to use an already in-use name for this. As many have pointed out, real physical factories don't do this, either. They build and ship the same thing with the same physical design in arbitrary quantities, which is a much easier problem to solve. Any Linux distro or mobile app store already does that.
by nonameiguess - I definitely agree with the sentiment of this article, give or take. I've seen it at the place a previously worked at and now the place I currently work at: everybody wants AI to make coding faster and more efficient, but nobody is willing to take the risk of changing course and bending the firm's processes around what would actually make the agents more useful. Maybe this is more general than the qualms against "software factories," but it's pretty apparent that agentic development doesn't mesh with most of the development processes everyone was following prior to LLMs. Whenever a human is in the loop, it creates THE bottleneck which ultimately sets the pace. When humans can't fathom not being in the driver seat, then they're constantly in the loop, and nothing actually improves.
I DO see small instances where this is overcome, albeit, it occurs when risk is minimal, the work is non-critical, and the required environment is already available. For example, exploratory research of new features. Before, this would be quite costly and particularly cumbersome since the results may indicate that the new feature isn't viable and the work is basically "wasted." Now, you can send some agents to explore it for you and give you a "first pass" on the validity of the concept. You still end up with humans taking over immediately after (often to verify that first pass), but this has allowed a bit more efficiency in terms of understanding when investing that human time in exploratory investigation is appropriate and when it isn't. People are willing to give agents this level of control because the alternative is usually just a default "no."
Regardless, it seems obvious we're in a painful transition period where everyone in software can see that there's a ton of value here, but where everyone is simultaneously constrained by existing infrastructure, processes, expectations, etc., so as to not be willing or able to tap into that value. I suspect it won't be until there's just more new companies coming in without these existing constraints will the actual new version of these processes start to emerge and MAYBE some of the existing companies will be more willing to shake things up as needed to take advantage of it.
by nater5000 - Software is the factory. The utility is built right in. You can create lossless copies of the product nearly instantly and for free. It's a logistical miracle.by bob1029
- "Software factory" in overused and inaccurate term. Factories have an expensive tooling process and then create the same widget thousands/millions of times. Software can be copied effortlessly once made.
What people are describing is more like a "software kitchen" or "software machine shop".
by xnx - Well there's the Factory Method Pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_method_patternby ape4
- I don’t think it’s possible to build a software factory unless you truly do not care about what you’re putting out.
Agent swarms, self learning, Ralph loops, execution DAGs, spending hours trying to convey my preferences into skills, yada yada — the reality is that no matter how long I spend trying to close the amortization gap between my expertise and (insert autonomous agent loop) … I always come back to see shit that I have opinions about and need to polish.
If you’re keeping on top of your craft, I just don’t think general purpose pretraining / RL is going to give you something which perfectly copies you. It can get closer and closer! But I’ve never seen agent work where I didn’t immediately start thinking of refinements …
I guess many things are okay if you’re okay with averages
by mccoyb - I really like the premise of this article because I am intensely interested in learning about software factories. As much as "software factory" is a buzzword, it's still SOTA and it's absolutely going to happen / keep happening in the tech industry over the next few years.
However, I can't read this, not because I refuse to -- I want to -- but because my the cogs in my mind just stop whirring at all of the LLM-isms, my eyes glaze over, and I stop being able to follow what the article is trying to communicate to me. I would love for the OP to call me out and correct me (that they haven't used LLMs to write this).
by sarreph