When I was five years old, I inherited the shoes of my older brother. Not because our family was poor, but because the shoes were good. My grandma told me that when she was a fiancée her dowry consisted of a few skirts. Not because she was poor. She wasn’t. Because the skirts were good and rather expensive. Now, in 2026, to get a new pair of shoes or a new skirt, I just buy them at a mall down the street. I don’t hesitate to throw away the old ones. The same will happen with the software, thanks to AI coding agents.
A few days ago someone (I lost the link) shared a funny story on LinkedIn. He showed a message from his former boss. The boss was asking for a fix to software written twenty years ago. The author of the story proudly claimed that some software, if written properly, can survive a generation.
The software in the story is similar to the skirt of my grandma. It was made to survive a few decades. Because it was expensive to make.
That’s why the boss is not hiring a new programmer to re-write the software. He asks for a fix. Just like my grandma would not throw away a skirt if it got a hole. It would go to a tailor to get a patch.
Many of us wonder what may happen when AI agents, like Claude Code, dominate the market. Programmers, especially junior ones, may be fired en masse. Look at what Jack Dorsey just did: terminating contracts of about 40% of his tech staff.
Large companies indeed will fire programmers, but not because the new world doesn’t need human coders. It’s because the new world doesn’t need large software companies.
What the world is looking forward to is a devaluation of software craftsmanship. Just like a skirt is no longer valuable, except for some high-end brands, software won’t be either. Developing a new ERP system would cost a few thousand dollars and take a few days of work. Just like it recently took a week to create a new web browser.
Oracle, Adobe, Microsoft, and JetBrains will run out of business.
When someone needs an IDE with new language support, they won’t wait for JetBrains to release it next year, maybe. They will go to a software shop around the corner, pay a few hundred bucks, and get it next Monday. When someone needs a new feature in Photoshop, they won’t wait for Adobe. They will buy a new Photoshop from a friend, with the feature and maybe a few more. When a company needs their accounting system to support a new logistics optimization scheme, they won’t go to Oracle. They will re-write the entire Oracle Fusion, for a few thousand dollars.
We won’t wait for new releases of the old software we love. We’ll toss them away and buy new ones.
The market will need more programmers, not fewer. In order to sew good skirts for all women, a city may need a few dozen tailors. Because every skirt costs a lot and is worn for decades. In order to manufacture throw-away one-time skirts, the same city needs many more people. Obviously, these new people are not the tailors of the good-old-days quality. But they make many skirts, thousands per day.
Just like fast fashion replaced tailors with factory workers and machine operators, fast software will replace programmers with AI operators. And the market will demand many of them. Many more than large software companies employ today.
Large companies will lose their monopoly on complexity. A small software shop will be able to build a new IDE, a new Photoshop, or even a new Linux. For a few thousand dollars.
The importance of open source software will continue to grow. It will become the primary provider of ingredients for AI and its operators.
The new world will need more programmers (AI operators) than it needs now. Because the demand for custom software will soon start growing. Everyone will want their own Photoshop. Every developer will want their own IDE and their own Linux. And they will throw them away without hesitation. Just like I throw away my shoes every year and get new ones.
