321–330 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Value to customer. Literally the only thing that matters.
Value isn't a one-shot, though. Value sustained over time is what matters. Well, if unmaintainable code gets in the way of the "sustained over time" part, then that is still a real problem.
They only seem to operate as "extract as much value as possible in a short amount of time and exit with your bag", these days
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The very definition of "vibe coding" is using AI to write software and not even look at the code it produces.
People use two definitions. There's this definition of LLM generation + "no thorough review or testing" And there's the more normative one: just LLM generation.[1][2][3] "Not even looking at it" is very difficult as part of a definition. What if you look at it once? Or just glance at it? Is it now no longer vibe coding? What if I read a diff every ten commits? Or look at the code when something breaks? At which point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a really wrong perspective on software. Short term monkey style coding does not produce products. You might get money but that is not what it is about. Getting money is 100% what it is about and Claude Code is great product.
It's very buggy. Just look at the ticket tracker. How can you say it is great; are you a light, nontechnical user?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm at a 5, and only because I've implemented a lot of guardrails, am using a typed functional language with no nulls, TDD red/green, and a good amount of time spent spec'ing. No way I'd be comfortable enough this high with a dynamic language. I could probably get to a 7 with some additional tooling and a second max 20 account, but I care too much about the product I'm building right now. Maybe for something I cared…
You aren't leveling up here... these levels are simple measures of how you use the tools to do something. You can regularly do things from any level or multiple levels at the same time.
"I have been screaming at my computer this past week dealing with a library that was written by overpaid meatbags with no AI help."
And here we go: The famous "humans do it, too" argument. With the gratuitous "meatbag" propaganda.
Look Bram, if you work on bitcoin bullshit startups, perhaps AI is good enough for you. No one will care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This product rides a hype wave. This is why it is crazy popular and successful. The situation there is akin to Viaweb - Viaweb also rode hype wave and code situation was awful as well (see PG's stories about fixing bugs during customer's issue reproduction theater). What did Viaweb's buyer do? They rewrote thing in C++. If history rhymes, then buyer of Anthropic would do something close to "rewrite it in C++" to the…
I don't disagree with your general premise that eventually it'll just be rewritten, but I have to push back on the idea that Anthropic will be acquired. Their most recent valuation was $380B, and even if they wanted to be acquired (which I doubt) essentially no company has the necessary capital.
isn't that pretty much why anthropic and openai are racing to IPO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm just a little tired of seeing these pull requests of multi-thousand-line pull requests where no one has actually looked at the code. The solution people are coming up with now is using AI for code reviews and I have to ask "why involve Git at all then?". If AI is writing the code, testing the code, reviewing the code, and merging the code, then it seems to me that we can just remove these steps and simply P…
> why involve Git at all then? I made a similar point 3 weeks ago. It wasn't very well received. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47411693 You don't actually need source control to be able to roll back to any particular version that was in use. A series of tarballs will let you do that. The entire purpose of source control is to let you reason about change sets to help you make decisions about the direction that…
It’s truly strange that people keep citing the quality of Claude code’s leaked source as if it’s proof vibe coding doesn’t work. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. It shows that you can build a crazy popular & successful product while violating all the traditional rules about “good” code.
One truism about coding agents is that they struggle to work with bad code. Code quality matters as much as always, the experts say, and AI agents (left unfettered) produce bad code at an unprecedented rate. That's why good practices matter so much! If you use specs and test it like so and blah blah blah, that makes it all sustainable. And if anyone knows how to do it right, presumably it's Anthropic. This codebase h…
i.e., the claude code codebase doesn't need to be good right now [^1] — so i don't think the assumption that this is an exemplary product / artifact of expert agentic coding actually holds up here specifically
[^1]: the startup graveyard is full of dead startups with good code
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think that might actually be a good path forward. I hate self-promotion but I posted my opinions on this last night https://blog.tombert.com/Posts/Technical/2026/04-April/Stop-... The tl;dr of this is that I don't think that the code itself is what needs to be preserved, the prompt and chat is the actual important and useful thing here. At some point I think it makes more sense to fine tune the prompts to…
> At some point I think it makes more sense to fine tune the prompts to get increasingly more specific and just regenerate the the code based on that spec, and store that in Git. Generating code using a non-deterministic code generator is a bold strategy. Just gotta hope that your next pull of the code slot machine doesn’t introduce a bug or ten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can build a crazy popular & successful product while violating all the traditional rules about “good” code which has always been true
See also Salesforce, Oracle, SAP