Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 259 posts

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#71

Post by lexandstuff »

zwnow wrote: post #17

Idk, I still mostly avoid using it and if I do, I just copy and paste shit into the Claude web version. I wont ever manage agents as that sounds just as complicated as coding shit myself.

It's not complicated at all. You don't "manage agents". You just type your prompt into an terminal application that can update files, read your docs and run your tests.

As with every new tech there's a hell of a lot of noise (plugins, skills, hooks, MCP, LSP - to quote Kaparthy) but most of it can just be disregarded. No one is "behind" - it's all very easy to use.

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#72

Post by codeformoney »

runtimepanic wrote: post #4

The title is doing a lot of work here. What resonated with me is the shift from “writing code” to “steering systems” rather than the hype framing. Senior devs already spend more time constraining, reviewing, and shaping outcomes than typing syntax. AI just makes that explicit. The real skill gap isn’t prompt cleverness, it’s knowing when the agent is confidently wrong and how to fence it in with tests, architecture,…

The stereotype that writing code is for junior developers needs to die. Some devs are hired with lofty titles specifically for their programming aptitude and esoteric systems knowlege, not to play implementation telephone with inexperienced devs.

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#73

Post by mkozlows »

simonw wrote: post #46
joenot443 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks Simon - always quick on the draw. Off your intuition, do you think the same study with Codex 5.2 and Opus 4.5 would see even better results?

Depends on the participants. If they're cutting-edge LLM users then yes, I think so. If they continue to use LLMs like they would have back in the first half of 2025 I'm not sure if a difference would be noticeable.

I'm not remotely cutting edge (just switched from Cursor to Codex CLI, have no fancy tooling infrastructure, am not even vaguely considering git worktrees as a means of working), but Opus 4.5 and 5.2 Codex are both so clearly more competent than previous models that I've started just telling them to do high-level things rather than trying to break things down and give them subtasks.

If people are really set in their ways, maybe they won't try anything beyond what old models can do, and won't notice a difference, but who's had time to get set in their ways with this stuff?

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#74

Post by agentifysh »

zem wrote: post #68
agentifysh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you work on somebody's dime, its no longer your choice

it's your choice whose dime you work on. they can compete for your work by making it fun for you.

sure unemployment is also a choice

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#76

Post by simonw »

websiteapi wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how I can prove it, but ~25 years ago building software without open source sucked . You had to build everything from scratch! It took months to get even the most basic things up and running. I think open source is the single most important productivity boost to our industry that's ever existed. Automated testing is a close second. Google, Facebook, many others would not have existed without open source…

even if that's true it's clear enough AI will reduce the demand for swe

I don't think that's certain. I'm hoping for a Jevons paradox situation where AI drives down the cost of producing software to the point that companies that previously weren't in the market for custom software start hiring software engineers. I think we could see demand go up.

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#77

Post by perfmode »

tikimcfee wrote: post #42
_cenw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone else getting more mentally exhausted by this? I get more done, but I also miss the relaxing code typing in the middle of the process.

Ya know, I have to admit feeling something like this. Normally, the amount of stuff I put together in a work day offers a sense of completion or even a bit of a dopamine bump because of a "job well done". With this recent work I've been doing, it's instead felt like I've been spending a multiplier more energy communicating intent instead of doing the work myself; that communication seems to be making me more tired th…

You’re possibly not entering into the flow state anymore.

Flow is effortless. and it is rejuvenating.

I believe:

While communication can be satisfying, it’s not as rejuvenating as resting in our own Being and simply allowing the action to unfold without mental contraction.

Flow states.

When the right level of challenge and capability align and you become intimate with the problem. The boundaries of me and the problem dissolve and creativity springs forth. Emerging satisfied. Nourished.

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#78

Post by agumonkey »

_cenw wrote: post #31
runtimepanic wrote: post #4

The title is doing a lot of work here. What resonated with me is the shift from “writing code” to “steering systems” rather than the hype framing. Senior devs already spend more time constraining, reviewing, and shaping outcomes than typing syntax. AI just makes that explicit. The real skill gap isn’t prompt cleverness, it’s knowing when the agent is confidently wrong and how to fence it in with tests, architecture,…

Is anyone else getting more mentally exhausted by this? I get more done, but I also miss the relaxing code typing in the middle of the process.

I think there are two groups of people emerging. deep / fast / craft-and-decomposition-loving vs black box / outcome-only.

I've seen people unable to work at average speed on small features suddenly reach above average output through a llm cli and I could sense the pride in them. Which is at odds with my experience of work.. I love to dig down, know a lot, model and find abstractions on my own. There a llm will 1) not understand how my brain work 2) produce something workable but that requires me to stretch mentally.. and most of the time I leave numb. In the last month I've seen many people expressing similar views.

ps: thanks everybody for the answers, interesting to read your pov

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#79

Post by agentifysh »

banbangtuth wrote: post #51
agentifysh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you dont get paid to have fun but to produce as a laborer a job isn't supposed to be fun its nice when it is but it shouldn't be what drives decisions

You mean it shouldn't be the driving force of your employer to make decision. Yes I agree 10000% I meant it can be your (not necessarily your employer) driving decision in life. Of course, you need to suffer. That's about having tradeoffs.

almost all employers are going to expect you to use AI and produce more with it

you can definitely choose not to participate and give the opportunity someone who are happy to use AI and still have fun with it.

Re: Professional software developers don't vibe, they control

#80

Post by throw1235435 »

llmslave2 wrote: post #52
aspenmartin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is folks talk past each other. People who find coding agents useful or enjoyable are labeled “on the hype train” and folks for which coding agents don’t work for them or their workflow are considered luddites. There are an incredible number of contradicting claims and predictions out there as well, and I believe what we see is folks projecting their reaction to some amalgamation of them onto others.…

I think the reason for the varying claims and predictions is because developers have wildly different standards for what constitutes working code. For the developers with a lower threshold, AI is like crack to them because gen ai's output is similar to what they would produce, and it really is a 10x speedup. For others, especially those who have to fix and maintain that code, it's more like a 10x slowdown. Hence why…

There's also the effect of different models. Until the most recent models, especially for concise algorithms, I felt it was still easier to sometimes do it myself (i.e. a good algo can be concise/more concise than a lossy prompt) and leave the "expansion/repetitive" boilerplate code to the LLM. At least for me the latest models do feel like a "step change" in that the problems can be bigger and/or require less supervision on each problem depending on the tradeoff you want.
Post reply on HN