If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C? • Hacker News Board

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#271

Post by zephen » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:14 PM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #166

mavamaarten wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I would never be able to give my Jira tickets to an LLM because they're too damn vague or incomplete. Getting the requirements first needs 4 rounds of lobbying with all stakeholders.

We had a client who'd create incredibly detailed Jira tickets. Their lead developer (also their only developer) would write exactly how he'd want us to implement a given feature, and what the expected output would be. The guy is also a complete tool. I'd point out that what he described wasn't actually what they needed, and that there functionality was ... strange and didn't actually do anything useful. We'd be told…

> how is a chatbot to know that the author of the task is a moron?

Does it matter?

The chatbot could deliver exactly what was asked for (even if it wasn't what was needed) without any angst or interpersonal issues.

Don't get me wrong. I feel you. I've been there, done that.

OTOH, maybe we should leave the morons to their shiny new toys and let them get on with specifying enough rope to hang themselves from the tallest available structure.

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#272

Post by Supermancho » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:16 PM UTC

jesse__ wrote: post #213

chis wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really funny how much better the AI is at writing python and javascript than it is C/C++. For one thing it proves the point that those languages really are just way harder to write. And another thing, it's funny that the AI makes the exact same mistakes a human would in C++. I don't know if it's that the AI was trained on human mistakes, or just that these languages have such strong wells of footguns that even a…

I don't think it has much to do with the languages being harder .. the training sets for JS and Python are probably an order of magnitude larger.

More examples/better models and less footguns. In programming, the fewer (assumed correct) abstractions, the more room for error. Humans learned this awhile ago, which is why your average programmer doesn't remember a lick of ASM, or have to. One of the reasons I don't trust vibe coding lower level languages is that I don't have multiple tools with which to cross check the AI output. Even the best AI models routinely produce code that does not compile, much less account for all side effects. Often, the output outright curtails functionality. It casually makes tradeoffs that a human would not make (usually). In C, AI use is a dangerous proposition.

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#273

Post by stared » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:20 PM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #37

stared wrote: post #5

There was a recent discussion, “Why AI Needs Hard Rules, Not Vibe Checks” ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152838 ). We need as many checks as possible - and ideally ones that come for free (e.g., guaranteed by types, lifetimes, etc.) - which is why Rust might be the language for vibe coding. Without checks and feedback, LLMs can easily generate unsafe code. So even if they can generate C or Assembly that wor…

Why Rust? Haskell is gold standard here.

I guess there is a reason why Linux kernel accepts Rust not Haskell.

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#274

Post by UncleOxidant » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:24 PM UTC

But I have been vibe coding in C. Created a parser/compiler for a subset of the C programming language that compiles to microcode for a novel computing architecture. Could I have done this on my own? Sure, but if I did I would've probably have done it in OCaml. And it would've taken me a lot longer to get it to the point where it is now. I think the advantage of vibe coding this (at least for me) is that I would have a hard time getting started due to procrastination - and I'd have a hard time keeping interested if there wasn't something working (yeah, maybe I'm a little ADHD, but aren't we all at this point?). Vibe coding it got me to something that was working pretty well in a surprisingly short amount of time which tended to make me more engaged without losing interest and attention. I didn't have to get caught up in remembering the intricacies of creating a makefile to build the code, for example. That's one of many places where I can get bogged down.

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#275

Post by russfink » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:26 PM UTC

parasti wrote: post #171

I really tried to get into the vibe coding thing - just describe the thing I need in human language and let the agent figure it out. It was incredible at first. Then I realized that I am spending a lot of time writing clarifications because the agent either forgot or misinterpreted something. Then I realized that I am waiting an awful long time for each agent step to complete just to write another correction or clari…

One trick I have tried is asking the LLM to output a specification of the thing we are in the middle of building. A commenter above said humans struggle with writing good requirements - LLMs have trouble following good requirements - ALL of them - often forgetting important things while scrambling to address your latest concern.

Getting it to output a spec lets me correct the spec, reload the browser tab to speed things up, or move to a different AI.

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#276

Post by AceJohnny2 » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:28 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #225

omnicognate wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software development jobs must be very diverse if even this anti-vibe-coding guy thinks AI coding definitely makes developers more productive. As a Professor of English who teaches programming to humanities students, the writer has had an extremely interesting and unusual academic career [1]. He sounds awesome, but I think it's fair to suggest he may not have much experience of large scale commercial software devel…

Hard to say but to back his claim that he was programming since the 90's his CV shows he was working on stuff that's clearly more than your basic undergraduate skill level since the early 2000's. I'd be willing to bet he has more years under his belt than most HN users. I mean I'm considered old here, in my mid 30's, and this guy has been programming most my life. Though that doesn't explicitly imply experience, or m…

> I mean I'm considered old here, in my mid 30's

sigh

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#277

Post by pizlonator » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:32 PM UTC

The main benefit of C is that it is especially readable by humans.

I think that’s what makes it so common in codebases that have long term maintenance stories.

(I say that because my personal project has me reading great loads of C written by diverse authors and I am surprised at how easy it is to figure out, compared to most other languages)

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#278

Post by UncleOxidant » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:32 PM UTC

markstos wrote: post #105

I have successfully vibe-coded features in C. I still don't like C. The agent forgets to free memory latter just like a human would and has to go back and fix it later. On the other hand, I've enjoyed vibe coding Rust more, because I'm interested in Rust and felt like my understanding approved along they way as I saw what code was produced. A lot of coding "talent" isn't skill with the language, it's learning all the…

> I have successfully vibe-coded features in C. I still don't like C.

Same here. I've been vibe-coding in C for the sake of others in my group who only know C (no C++ or Rust). And I have to say that the agent did do pretty well with memory management. There were some early problems, but it was able to debug them pretty quickly (and certainly if I had had to dig into the intricacies of GDB to do that on my own, it would've taken a lot longer). I'm glad that it takes care of things like memory management and dealing with strings in C (things that I do not find pleasant).

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#279

Post by jjgreen » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:37 PM UTC

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #276

godelski wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to say but to back his claim that he was programming since the 90's his CV shows he was working on stuff that's clearly more than your basic undergraduate skill level since the early 2000's. I'd be willing to bet he has more years under his belt than most HN users. I mean I'm considered old here, in my mid 30's, and this guy has been programming most my life. Though that doesn't explicitly imply experience, or m…

> I mean I'm considered old here, in my mid 30's sigh

I got a coat older than that (and in decent nick).

Re: If you're going to vibe code, why not do it in C?

#280

Post by UncleOxidant » Tue, Dec 09, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

chis wrote: post #208

markstos wrote: post #105

I have successfully vibe-coded features in C. I still don't like C. The agent forgets to free memory latter just like a human would and has to go back and fix it later. On the other hand, I've enjoyed vibe coding Rust more, because I'm interested in Rust and felt like my understanding approved along they way as I saw what code was produced. A lot of coding "talent" isn't skill with the language, it's learning all the…

It's really funny how much better the AI is at writing python and javascript than it is C/C++. For one thing it proves the point that those languages really are just way harder to write. And another thing, it's funny that the AI makes the exact same mistakes a human would in C++. I don't know if it's that the AI was trained on human mistakes, or just that these languages have such strong wells of footguns that even a…

> It's really funny how much better the AI is at writing python and javascript than it is C/C++. For one thing it proves the point that those languages really are just way harder to write.

I have not found this to be the case. I mean, yeah, they're really good with Python and yeah that's a lot easier, but I had one recently (IIRC it was the pre-release GPT5.1) code me up a simulator for a kind of a microcoded state machine in C++ and it did amazingly well - almost in one-shot. It can single-step through the microcode, examine IOs, allows you to set input values, etc. I was quite impressed. (I had asked it to look at the C code for a compiler that targets this microcoded state machine in addition to some Verilog that implements the machine in order for it to figure out what the simulator should be doing). I didn't have high expectations going in, but was very pleasantly surprised to have a working simulator with single-stepping capabilities within an afternoon all in what seems to be pretty-well written C++.