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

We put a coding agent in a while loop

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 317 posts

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#191

Post by pelario »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #148
VincentEvans wrote: post #12

There will be a a new kind of job for software engineers, sort of like a cross between working with legacy code and toxic site cleanup. Like back in the day being brought in to “just fix” a amalgam of FoxPro-, Excel-, and Access-based ERP that “mostly works” and only “occasionally corrupts all our data” that ambitious sales people put together over last 5 years. But worse - because “ambitious sales people” will no lo…

> and it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time. This will be the big counter to AI generated tools; at one point they become black boxes and the only thing people can do is to try and fix them or replace them altogether. Of course, in theory, AI tooling will only improve; today's vibe coded software that in some cases generate revenue can be fed into the models o…

> Personally, I hate it; I don't like magic or black boxes.

So, no compilers for you neither ?

(To be fair: I'm not loving the whole vibe coding thing. But I'm trying to approach this wave with open mind, and looking for the good arguments in both side. This is not one of them)

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#192

Post by sdeframond »

thyristan wrote: post #164
worldsayshi wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prevailing counter narrative around vibe coding seems to be that "code output isn't the bottle neck, understanding the problem is". But shouldn't that make vibe coding a good tool for the tool belt? Use it to understand the outermost layer of the problem, then throw out the code and write a proper solution.

> [create prototype], then throw out the code and write a proper solution. Problem is, that in everyones' experience, this almost never happens. The prototype is declared "good enough, just needs a few small adjustments", rewrite is declared too expensive, too time-consuming. And crap goes to production.

> Problem is

How much is it a problem, really ?

I mean, what are the alternatives ?

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#193

Post by diggan »

bwestergard wrote: post #26

There are always two major results from any software development process: a change in the code and a change in cognition for the people who wrote the code (whether they did so directly or with an LLM). Python and Typescript are elaborate formal languages that emerged from a lengthy process of development involving thousands of people around the world over many years. They are non-trivially different, and it's neat th…

> It is plain to see that the developers who prompted an LLM to generate this library will not have the same familiarity with the resulting code that they would have had they written it directly

I think that's a bit too simplified. Yes, a person just blindly accepting whatever the LLM generates from their unclear prompts probably won't have much understanding or familiarity with it.

But that's not how I personally use LLMs, and I'm sure a lot of others too. Instead, I'm the designer/architect, with a strict control of exactly what I want. I may not actually have written the lines, but all the interfaces/APIs are human designed, the overall design/architecture is human designed, and since I designed it, I know enough to say I'd be familiar with it.

And if I come back to the project in 1-2 years, even if there is no document, it's trivial to spend 10-20 minutes together with an LLM to understand the codebase from every angle, just ask pointed questions, and you can rebuild your mental image quickly.

TLDR: Not everyone is a using LLMs for "vibe-coding" (blind-coding), but as an assistant sitting next to you. So my guess is that the ones who know what you need to know in order to effectively build software, will be a lot more productive. The ones who don't know that (yet?), will drown in spaghetti faster than before.

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#194

Post by LeafItAlone »

ghuntley wrote: post #187
precompute wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's grifting, plain and simple. And that blog is atrocious, high noise-to-signal and repulsive, AI-generated everything.

And yet, the original post, which has been on the front page of Hacker News for 18 hours, is based on techniques from my blog that you're degrading.

Small suggestion: It might be best to avoid responding to these “trolls” because some of us who appreciate the work you do might be put off by your off-hand attempting-witty responses. It doesn’t really help you and can only hurt you to respond.

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#195

Post by mexicocitinluez »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #45

Does anyone else get dull feelings of dread reading this kind of thing? How do you combat it?

Embrace it.

It's not crypto. It will 100% be around for the foreseeable future. Maybe not in the form it currently exists and maybe not even at the scale it currently exists, but it's here to stay.

As developers, we're just as biased as the CEO at the top trying to hawk this stuff but in the opposite manner.

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#196

Post by thyristan »

sdeframond wrote: post #192
thyristan wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [create prototype], then throw out the code and write a proper solution. Problem is, that in everyones' experience, this almost never happens. The prototype is declared "good enough, just needs a few small adjustments", rewrite is declared too expensive, too time-consuming. And crap goes to production.

> Problem is How much is it a problem, really ? I mean, what are the alternatives ?

The alternative is obviously: Do it right on the first try.

How much of a problem it is can be seen with tons of products that are crap on release and only slowly get patched to a half-working state when the complaints start pouring in. But of course, this is status quo in software, so the perception of this as a problem among software people isn't universal I guess.

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#197

Post by ghuntley »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #194
ghuntley wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, the original post, which has been on the front page of Hacker News for 18 hours, is based on techniques from my blog that you're degrading.

Small suggestion: It might be best to avoid responding to these “trolls” because some of us who appreciate the work you do might be put off by your off-hand attempting-witty responses. It doesn’t really help you and can only hurt you to respond.

Fair

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#198

Post by pjc50 »

pelario wrote: post #191
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time. This will be the big counter to AI generated tools; at one point they become black boxes and the only thing people can do is to try and fix them or replace them altogether. Of course, in theory, AI tooling will only improve; today's vibe coded software that in some cases generate revenue can be fed into the models o…

> Personally, I hate it; I don't like magic or black boxes. So, no compilers for you neither ? (To be fair: I'm not loving the whole vibe coding thing. But I'm trying to approach this wave with open mind, and looking for the good arguments in both side. This is not one of them)

Apart from various C UB fiascos, the compiler is neither a black box nor magic, and most of the worthwhile ones are even determinstic.

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#199

Post by LtWorf »

mcny wrote: post #134
cruffle_duffle wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you so sure it will have a repo? I don’t recall the last time Claude suggested anything about version control :-)

Claude will give what you asked for. My sensible chuckle moment was when I asked it to create a demo asp net web API and it did everything but add the authorize tag or any kind of authentication. I asked what was missing and until i mentioned it, it didn't mention authentication or authorization at all.

> Claude will give what you asked for.

And how many know they need to ask for version control?

Re: We put a coding agent in a while loop

#200

Post by antihero »

nsonha wrote: post #86
dhorthy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

still don’t know why you need an MCP for this when the model is perfectly well trained to write files and run kubetctl on its own

> on its own does it? Did you forget the prompts? MCP is just a protocol for tool/function calling which in turn is part of the prompt, quite an important part actually. Did you think AI works by prompts like "make magic happen" and it... just happens? Anyone who makes dumb arguments like this should not deserve a job in tech.

I’ve literally asked Claude Code to look at and fix an issue on a cluster and it knows to use the cli utils.
Post reply on HN