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

91–100 of 259 posts

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

#91

Post by flurie »

game_the0ry wrote: post #2

> Through field observations (N=13) and qualitative surveys (N=99)... Not a statistically significant sample size.

This is a qualitative methods paper, so statistical significance is not relevant. The rough qualitative equivalent would instead be "data saturation" (responses generally look like ones you've received already) and "thematic saturation" (you've likely found all the themes you will find through this method of data collection). There's an intuitive quality to determining the number of responses needed based on the topic and research questions, but this looks to me like they have achieved sufficient thematic saturation based on the results.

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

#92

Post by remich »

codeformoney wrote: post #72
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.

I don't think that anyone actually believes that writing code is only for junior developers. That seems to be a significant exaggeration at the very least. However, it is definitely true that most organizations of this size are hiring people into technical lead, staff engineer, or principal engineer roles are hiring those people not only for their individual expertise, or ability to apply that expertise themselves, but also for their ability to use that expertise as a force multiplier to make other less experienced people better at the craft.

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

#94

Post by zahlman »

agumonkey wrote: post #78
_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.

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) no…

> deep / fast / craft-and-decomposition-loving vs black box / outcome-only

As a (self-reported) craft-and-decomposition lover, I wouldn't call the process "fast".

Certainly it's much faster than if I were trying to take the same approach without the same skills; and certainly I could slow it down with over-engineering. (And "deep" absolutely fits.) But the people I've known that I'd characterize as strongly "outcome-only", were certainly capable of sustaining some pretty high delta-LoC per day.

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

#95

Post by remich »

christophilus wrote: post #86
mkozlows wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mostly agree, but today, Opus 4.5 via Claude code did something pretty dumb stuff in my codebase— N queries where one would do, deep array comparison where a reference equality check would suffice, very complex web of nested conditionals which a competent developer would have never written, some edge cases where the backend endpoints didn’t properly verify user permissions before overwriting data, etc. It’s still h…

I have had a lot of success lately when working with Opus 4.5 using both the Beads task tracking system and the array of skills under the umbrella of Bad Dave's Robot Army. I don't have a link handy, but you should be able to find it on GitHub. I use the specialized skills for different review tasks (like Architecture Review, Performance Review, Security Review, etc.) on every completed task in addition to my own manual review, and I find that that helps to keep things from getting out of hand.

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

#96

Post by zahlman »

ronsor wrote: post #90
agumonkey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) no…

The sibling comments (from remich and sanufar) match my experience. 1. I do love getting into the details of code, but I don't mind having an LLM handle boilerplate. 2. There isn't a binary between having an LLM generate all the code and writing it all myself. 3. I still do most of the design work because LLMs often make questionable design decisions. 4. Sometimes I simply want a program to solve a problem (outcome-f…

> I do love getting into the details of code, but I don't mind having an LLM handle boilerplate.

My usual thought is that boilerplate tells me, by existing, where the system is most flawed.

I do like the idea of having a tool that quickly patches the problem while also forcing me to think about its presence.

> There isn't a binary between having an LLM generate all the code and writing it all myself. I still do most of the design work because LLMs often make questionable design decisions.

One workflow that makes sense to me is to have the LLM commit on a branch; fix simple issues instead of trying to make it work (with all the worry of context poisoning); refactor on the same branch; merge; and then repeat for the next feature — starting more or less from scratch except for the agent config (CLAUDE.md etc.). Does that sound about right? Maybe you do something less formal?

> Sometimes I simply want a program to solve a purpose (outcome-focused) over a project to work on (craft-focused). Sometimes I need a small program in order to focus on the larger project, and being able to delegate that work has made it more enjoyable.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

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

#97

Post by senshan »

Excellent survey, but one has to be careful when participating in such surveys:

"I’m on disability, but agents let me code again and be more productive than ever (in a 25+ year career). - S22"

Once Social Security Administration learns this, there goes the disability benefit...

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

#98

Post by LoganDark »

senshan wrote: post #97

Excellent survey, but one has to be careful when participating in such surveys: "I’m on disability, but agents let me code again and be more productive than ever (in a 25+ year career). - S22" Once Social Security Administration learns this, there goes the disability benefit...

I think you eventually lose disability benefits anyway once you start making money.

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

#99

Post by drbojingle »

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.

What's the difference between using llms now vs the first half of 2025 among the best users?

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

#100

Post by throw1235435 »

ipdashc wrote: post #81
throw1235435 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it did; I remember those times. All else being equal I still think SWE salaries on average would of been higher if we kept it like that given basic economics - there would of been a lot less people capable of doing it but the high ROI automation opportunities would of still been there. The fact that "it sucked" usually creates more scarcity on the supply side; which all being equal means higher wages and in ou…

> ex big tech I mean, this seems like a pretty big thing to leave out, no? That's where all the crazy high salaries were! Also, there are still legacy places that more or less build software like it's 1999. I get the impression that embedded, automotive, and such still rely a lot on proprietary tools, finicky manual processes, low level languages (obviously), etc. But those are notorious for being annoying and not ve…

I'm talking about what I perceive to be the median salary/conditions with big tech being only a part of that. My point is more that I remember back in that period good salaries could be had outside big tech too even in the boring standard companies that you state. I remember banks, insurance, etc paying very well for example compared to today for an SWE/tech worker - the good opportunities seemed more distributed. For example I've seen contract rates for some of the people we hire haven't really changed for 10 years for developers. Now at best they are on par with other professional white collar workers; and the competition seems fiercer (e.g. 5 interviews for a similar salary with leetcode games rather than experienced based interviews).

Making software easier and more abstract has allowed less technical people into the profession, allowed easier outsourcing, meant more competition/interview prep to filter out people (even if the skills are not used in the job at all), more material for AI to train on, etc. To the parent comment's point I don't think it has boosted salaries and/or conditions on average for the SWE - in the long run (10 years +) it could be argued that economically the opposite has occurred.

Post reply on HN