After two years of vibecoding, I'm back to writing by hand

Post by Ososjjss » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

kaydub wrote: post #207

ap99 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's your job. Exactly. AI assisted development isn't all or nothing. We as a group and as individuals need to figure out the right blend of AI and human.

I'm only writing 5-10% of my own code at this point. The AI tools are good, it just seems like people that don't like them expect them to be 100% automatic with no hand holding. Like people in here complaining about how poor the tests are... but did they start another agent to review the tests? Did they take that and iterate on the tests with multiple agents? I can attest that the first pass of testing can often be s…

Post by jandrewrogers » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #43

recursivedoubts wrote: post #8

AI is incredibly dangerous because it can do the simple things very well, which prevents new programmers from learning the simple things ("Oh, I'll just have AI generate it") which then prevents them from learning the middlin' and harder and meta things at a visceral level. I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'…

What you as a teacher teach might have to adapt a bit. Teaching how code works is more important than teaching how to code. Most academic computer scientists aren't necessarily very skilled as programmers in any case. At least, I learned most of that after I stopped being an academic myself (Ph. D. and all). This is OK. Learning to program is more of a side effect of studying computer science than it is a core goal (…

Post by kaydub » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

hgs3 wrote: post #128

I'm flabbergasted why anyone would voluntarily vibe code anything. For me, software engineering is a craft. You're supposed to enjoy building it. You should want to do it yourself.

Post by hmaxwell » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

dev_l1x_be wrote: post #225

GolDDranks wrote: post #219

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The article starts with: > you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed. That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ di…

Well one way of solving this is to keep giving it simple tasks.

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

GolDDranks wrote: post #229

GolDDranks wrote: post #219

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The article starts with: > you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed. That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ di…

Just a supplementary fact: I'm in the beneficial position, against the AI, that in a case where it's hard to provide that automatic feedback loop, I can run and test the code at my discretion, whereas the AI model can't. Yet. Most of my criticism is not after running the code, but after _reading_ the code. It wrote code. I read it. And I am not happy with it. No even need to run it, it's shit at glance.