In a recent LinkedIn post, Lucaronin explores a series of provocative ideas about the evolving landscape of software engineering, particularly in the age of AI. The post, which details insights gained from a discussion with James Stanier, CTO at Nordhealth and author, presents a compelling argument that the intrinsic value of code itself is diminishing, shifting focus towards the outcomes it enables.
Lucaronin highlights several key takeaways from their conversation with Stanier, emphasizing a fundamental change in how engineering work is perceived and valued. One of the central themes is the changing nature of code itself.
“The value of artisanal code is zero, what matters is what the code does. Engineers who are outcome-focused thrive, while those attached purely to the craft of writing code may struggle.”
This perspective, as shared by Lucaronin, suggests a move away from valuing the elegance or complexity of code for its own sake, towards a more pragmatic assessment of its functional impact. According to Lucaronin, this outcome-oriented approach is becoming critical for engineers seeking to thrive in the current market.
The Bifurcation of the Engineering Market
Lucaronin also touches upon a potential market split foreseen by Stanier. This bifurcation could see a divergence between engineers who leverage AI to orchestrate broad capabilities and those who specialize in deep platform and systems engineering. Lucaronin explains this potential future:
“The market may split between AI-orchestrating generalists and deep platform/systems engineers, potentially eroding the middle ground.”
In Lucaronin’s interpretation, this trend implies that the middle-ground roles might become less common as the market polarizes towards highly specialized or highly AI-augmented skill sets.
The Evolving Role of Engineering Managers
A significant portion of Lucaronin’s post addresses the critical need for engineering managers to maintain technical proficiency. The insights shared suggest that traditional people-management skills alone are insufficient in today’s rapidly advancing technological environment.
As Lucaronin relays Stanier’s viewpoint, managers must actively engage with technology, including AI, to remain effective. This involves contributing to code, developing prototypes, and automating routine tasks. Lucaronin quotes Stanier’s observation:
“Managers who are thriving today have embraced AI to stay close to the details, contribute code, build prototypes, and automate grunt work. Pure people-management alone no longer cuts it.”
This underscores a shift towards a more hands-on, technically integrated leadership style for engineering managers.
Rethinking Hiring and the Impact of Remote Work
Lucaronin further elaborates on Stanier’s contrarian views on hiring and the enduring nature of remote work. Instead of hiring to solve immediate problems, Stanier, as reported by Lucaronin, advocates for maintaining flat, fixed-size organizations. This approach forces better prioritization, especially given the unknown productivity gains from AI.
Regarding remote work, Lucaronin notes that while the initial intense focus may have waned, its place in the professional landscape is permanent. The post suggests that remote work is fundamentally a lifestyle choice, with no universally superior option, as its effectiveness depends on individual thriving and life goals.
Overall, Lucaronin’s post presents a forward-looking perspective on the engineering profession, highlighting the critical importance of adaptability, outcome-focus, and continuous technical engagement in the face of rapid technological change.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Lucaronin on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on June 2, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →