GoKawiilBlog post argues hand-coding remains worthwhile as a hobby despite AI
A programmer writes that despite AI tools changing the economics of professional coding, hand-writing code for personal projects like a Breakout clone or exploring type theory in Java remains enjoyable and valuable in its own right. The author distinguishes between work, where AI can now one-shot many tasks, and leisure programming, which they pursue purely for the satisfaction of problem-solving and learning.
GoKawiil's interpretation of the reporting above, not reported fact.
The post pushes back on a narrative circulating in developer communities like Hacker News that coding by hand is becoming pointless now that AI models can generate working code quickly. It suggests that conflating professional efficiency with personal fulfillment may discourage people from pursuing programming as a creative or intellectual hobby.
- The author continues writing code by hand for personal projects despite AI's ability to generate similar code instantly.
- The piece separates professional coding economics from personal enjoyment of programming as a craft.
- It criticizes what the author calls social pressure and 'doom' sentiment around AI's impact on coding as a source of joy.
Game Programming Patterns by Robert Nystrom — This book is a perfect companion for anyone tinkering with a Breakout clone on weekends, covering classic patterns for collision detection, game loops, and state management in approachable language. It's written for the joy of learning, not production deadlines, which fits the spirit of hobby coding described in the article.
See Game Programming Patterns by Robert Nystrom on Amazon → Affiliate link — we may earn a commission on purchases, at no extra cost to you. Product picked by AI based on this article; it is not a tested recommendation.Source: chriskiehl.com, 2026-10-17
Published there as: “It's still OK to enjoy programming”
Read the original report → The summary and analysis above are GoKawiil's own, written from reporting by the source above. Facts and quotes belong to the original publisher.