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

How I write software with LLMs

stavros.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 544 posts

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#11

Post by ashwinsundar »

plastic041 wrote: post #9

I wanted to know how to make softwares with LLM "without losing the benefit of knowing how the entire system works" and "intimately familiar with each project’s architecture and inner workings", while "have never even read most of their code". (Because obviously, you can't.) But OP didn't explain that. You tell LLM to create something, and then use another LLM to review it. It might make the result safer, but it does…

Hot take: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you aren't writing code, designing the system, creating architecture, or even writing the prompt, then you're not understanding shit. You're playing slots with stochastic parrots

    The code grows beyond my usual comprehension, I'd have to really read through it for a while. Sometimes the LLMs can't fix a bug so I just work around it or ask for random changes until it goes away. It's not too bad for throwaway weekend projects, but still quite amusing. I'm building a project or webapp, but it's not really coding - I just see stuff, say stuff, run stuff, and copy paste stuff, and it mostly works.
- Karpathy 2025

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#12

Post by borski »

silisili wrote: post #10

I'm not sure the notion I keep seeing of "it's ok, we still architect, it just writes the code"(paraphrased) sits well with me. I've not tested it with architecting a full system, but assuming it isn't good at it today... it's only a matter of time. Then what is our use?

LLMs can build anything. The real question is what is worth building, and how it’s delivered. That is what is still human. LLMs, by nature of not being human, cannot understand humans as well as other humans can. (See every attempt at using an LLM as a therapist)

In short: LLMs will eventually be able to architect software. But it’s still just a tool

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#13

Post by felixsells »

christofosho wrote: post #2

I like reading these types of breakdowns. Really gives you ideas and insight into how others are approaching development with agents. I'm surprised the author hasn't broken down the developer agent persona into smaller subagents. There is a lot of context used when your agent needs to write in a larger breadth of code areas (i.e. database queries, tests, business logic, infrastructure, the general code skeleton). I'v…

[flagged]

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#14

Post by simonw »

ashwinsundar wrote: post #11
plastic041 wrote: post #9

I wanted to know how to make softwares with LLM "without losing the benefit of knowing how the entire system works" and "intimately familiar with each project’s architecture and inner workings", while "have never even read most of their code". (Because obviously, you can't.) But OP didn't explain that. You tell LLM to create something, and then use another LLM to review it. It might make the result safer, but it does…

Hot take: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you aren't writing code, designing the system, creating architecture, or even writing the prompt, then you're not understanding shit. You're playing slots with stochastic parrots The code grows beyond my usual comprehension, I'd have to really read through it for a while. Sometimes the LLMs can't fix a bug so I just work around it or ask for random changes until i…

Your Karpathy quote there is out of context. It starts with: https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

  There's a new kind of coding I call "vibe
  coding", where you fully give in to the
  vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget
  that the code even exists.
Not all AI-assisted programming is vibe coding. If you're paying attention to the code that's being produced you can guide it towards being just as high quality (or even higher quality) than code you would have written by hand.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#15

Post by silisili »

borski wrote: post #12
silisili wrote: post #10

I'm not sure the notion I keep seeing of "it's ok, we still architect, it just writes the code"(paraphrased) sits well with me. I've not tested it with architecting a full system, but assuming it isn't good at it today... it's only a matter of time. Then what is our use?

LLMs can build anything. The real question is what is worth building, and how it’s delivered. That is what is still human. LLMs, by nature of not being human, cannot understand humans as well as other humans can. (See every attempt at using an LLM as a therapist) In short: LLMs will eventually be able to architect software. But it’s still just a tool

What is the use of software eng/architect at that point? It's a tool, but one that product or C levels can use directly as I see it?

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#16

Post by borski »

silisili wrote: post #15
borski wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can build anything. The real question is what is worth building, and how it’s delivered. That is what is still human. LLMs, by nature of not being human, cannot understand humans as well as other humans can. (See every attempt at using an LLM as a therapist) In short: LLMs will eventually be able to architect software. But it’s still just a tool

What is the use of software eng/architect at that point? It's a tool, but one that product or C levels can use directly as I see it?

Yes, for building something

But for building the right thing? Doubtful.

Most of a great engineer’s work isn’t writing code, but interrogating what people think their problems are, to find what the actual problems are.

In short: problem solving, not writing code.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#17

Post by chii »

silisili wrote: post #10

I'm not sure the notion I keep seeing of "it's ok, we still architect, it just writes the code"(paraphrased) sits well with me. I've not tested it with architecting a full system, but assuming it isn't good at it today... it's only a matter of time. Then what is our use?

> Then what is our use?

You will have to find new economic utility. That's the reality of technological progress - it's just that the tech and white collar industries didn't think it can come for them!

A skill that becomes obsoleted is useless, obviously. There's still room for artisanal/handcrafted wares today, amidst the industrial scale productions, so i would assume similar levels for coding.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#18

Post by [deleted] »

silisili wrote: post #10

I'm not sure the notion I keep seeing of "it's ok, we still architect, it just writes the code"(paraphrased) sits well with me. I've not tested it with architecting a full system, but assuming it isn't good at it today... it's only a matter of time. Then what is our use?

[deleted]

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#19

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

silisili wrote: post #15
borski wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can build anything. The real question is what is worth building, and how it’s delivered. That is what is still human. LLMs, by nature of not being human, cannot understand humans as well as other humans can. (See every attempt at using an LLM as a therapist) In short: LLMs will eventually be able to architect software. But it’s still just a tool

What is the use of software eng/architect at that point? It's a tool, but one that product or C levels can use directly as I see it?

A software engineer will be a person who inspects the AI's work, same as a building inspector today. A software architect will co-sign on someone's printed-up AI plans, same as a building architect today. Some will be in-house, some will do contract work, and some will be artists trying to create something special, same as today. The brute labor is automated away, and the creativity (and liability) is captured by humans.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#20

Post by jumploops »

This is similar to how I use LLMs (architect/plan -> implement -> debug/review), but after getting bit a few times, I have a few extra things in my process:

The main difference between my workflow and the authors, is that I have the LLM "write" the design/plan/open questions/debug/etc. into markdown files, for almost every step.

This is mostly helpful because it "anchors" decisions into timestamped files, rather than just loose back-and-forth specs in the context window.

Before the current round of models, I would religiously clear context and rely on these files for truth, but even with the newest models/agentic harnesses, I find it helps avoid regressions as the software evolves over time.

A minor difference between myself and the author, is that I don't rely on specific sub-agents (beyond what the agentic harness has built-in for e.g. file exploration).

I say it's minor, because in practice the actual calls to the LLMs undoubtedly look quite similar (clean context window, different task/model, etc.).

One tip, if you have access, is to do the initial design/architecture with GPT-5.x Pro, and then take the output "spec" from that chat/iteration to kick-off a codex/claude code session. This can also be helpful for hard to reason about bugs, but I've only done that a handful of times at this point (i.e. funky dynamic SVG-based animation snafu).

Post reply on HN