How I write software with LLMs • Hacker News Board

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#441

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #438

fzeroracer wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it your work? What did you bring to the table? Because if we're going to analyze design, then code is one function of that design. For example, you talk about how the code is secure. How do you prove that it is secure?

The same way you prove your OSS code is secure. People here see an LLM-assisted project and suddenly they've never written a bug in their life.

I cannot empirically prove that my OS is secure, because I haven't written it. I trust that the maintainers of my OS have done their due diligence in ensuring it is secure, because they take ownership over their work.

But when I write software, critical software that sits on a customer's device, I take ownership over the areas of code that I've written, because I can know what I've written. They may contain bugs or issues that I may need to fix, but at the time I can know that I tried to apply the best practices I was aware of.

So if I ask you the same thing, do you know if your software is secure? What architecture prevents someone from exfiltrating all of the account data from pine town? What best practices are applied here?

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#442

Post by dncornholio » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #428

dncornholio wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think it's fair to think any negative comment is from some anti-LLM-axe. I seriously gave you the benefit of the doubt, that was the whole reason I even looked further into your work. It's no shame to be critical in todays world. Delivering proof is something that holds extra value and if I would create an article about the wonderful things I've created, I'd be extra sure to show it. I looked at your clock proj…

Saying things like "there's no proof of your work" is the anti-LLM axe. Yes, it's all written by LLMs, and yes, it's all my work. Judge it on what it does and how well it works, not on whether the code looks like the code you would have written.

You're missing the point. I don't care who wrote it, I want to know if it works.

Also, you didn't address my remarks about your clock. Can you can show me a picture of it working in action?

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#443

Post by stavros » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:33 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #441

stavros wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you prove your OSS code is secure. People here see an LLM-assisted project and suddenly they've never written a bug in their life.

I cannot empirically prove that my OS is secure, because I haven't written it. I trust that the maintainers of my OS have done their due diligence in ensuring it is secure, because they take ownership over their work. But when I write software, critical software that sits on a customer's device, I take ownership over the areas of code that I've written, because I can know what I've written. They may contain bugs or i…

I didn't say OS, I said OSS. Open-source software.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#444

Post by Miraste » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:35 PM UTC

arialdomartini wrote: post #68

akhrail1996 wrote: post #22

Genuine question: what's the evidence that the architect → developer → reviewer pipeline actually produces better results than just... talking to one strong model in one session? The author uses different models for each role, which I get. But I run production agents on Opus daily and in my experience, if you give it good context and clear direction in a single conversation, the output is already solid. The ceremony…

This is anecdotal but just a couple days ago, with some colleagues, we conducted a little experiment to gather that evidence. We used a hierarchy of agents to analyze a requirement, letting agents with different personas (architect, business analyst, security expert, developer, infra etc) discuss a request and distill a solution. They all had access to the source code of the project to work on. Then we provided the v…

LLMs also don't have the primary advantage humans get from job separation, diverse perspectives. A council of Opuses are all exploring the exact same weights with the exact same hardware, unlike multiple humans with unique brains and memories. Even with different ones, Codex 5.3 is far more similar to Opus than any two humans are to each other. Telling an Opus agent to focus on security puts it in a different part of the weights, but it's the same graph-- it's not really more of an expert than a general Opus agent with a rule to maintain secure practices.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#445

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:35 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #443

fzeroracer wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot empirically prove that my OS is secure, because I haven't written it. I trust that the maintainers of my OS have done their due diligence in ensuring it is secure, because they take ownership over their work. But when I write software, critical software that sits on a customer's device, I take ownership over the areas of code that I've written, because I can know what I've written. They may contain bugs or i…

I didn't say OS, I said OSS. Open-source software.

Fair mistake on my end, I'm aware of what OSS means but my eyes will have a tendency to skip a letter or two. The same argument applies; because if I write something and release it to the OSS community there's going to be an expectation that A) I know how it works deeply and B) I know if it's reasonably secure when it's dealing with personal data. They can verify this by looking at the code, independently.

But if the code is unreadable and I can't make a valid argument for my software, what's left?

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#446

Post by andai » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:35 PM UTC

> Since LLMs have become good at programming, I’ve been using them to make stuff nonstop, and it’s very exciting that we’re at the beginning of yet another entirely unexplored frontier.

Making software?

It sounds funny but I've heard an interesting argument along those lines.

The reason software is slow and bloated and kind of unreliable is because... It can be. There's so little competition. If there was actual competition, then there would be pressure to make it not be shit. But apparently no such pressure exists.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#447

Post by icedchai » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

awakeasleep wrote: post #230

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 30 years of experience delivering code and 10 years of leading architecture. My argument is the only thing that matters is does the entire implementation - code + architecture (your database, networking, your runtime that determines scaling, etc) meet the functional and none functional requirements. Functional = does it meet the business requirements and UX and non functional = scalability, security, performan…

Explain how fragility of implementation, like spaghetti code, high coupling low cohesion fit into your world view?

In my experience, consulting companies typically have a bunch of low-to-medium skilled developers producing crap, so the situation with AI isn't much different. Some are better than others, of course.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#448

Post by stavros » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:38 PM UTC

dncornholio wrote: post #442

stavros wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying things like "there's no proof of your work" is the anti-LLM axe. Yes, it's all written by LLMs, and yes, it's all my work. Judge it on what it does and how well it works, not on whether the code looks like the code you would have written.

You're missing the point. I don't care who wrote it, I want to know if it works. Also, you didn't address my remarks about your clock. Can you can show me a picture of it working in action?

But you didn't say anything about wanting to know how it works, your comment was:

> The article's content doesn't match his apps quality. They don't bring any value. His clock looks completely AI generated.

I don't understand your point about proof. After more than 120 open-source projects, you think I'm lying about the fact that my clock works? All the tens of projects I've written up on my site over decades, you latch on to the one I haven't published yet as some sort of proof that I'm lying? I really don't understand what your point is.

Here: https://immich.home.stavros.io/share/_k403I3s3cON-8oL5yP_QXY...

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#449

Post by borski » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #439

borski wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said great engineers didn’t write code. But writing the code was never the point. The point has always been delivering the product to the customer, in any industry. Code is rarely the deliverable. That’s my point.

And a horse breeder was important to transportation until the 1920s, but it doesn't mean their job was transportation. They didn't magically become great truck drivers. Programmers do not deliver products, they deliver code to make products. If the code is no longer needed, nor is the job. A different job will replace it with different skills required.

> And a horse breeder was important to transportation until the 1920s, but it doesn't mean their job was transportation. They didn't magically become great truck drivers.

Again: unrelated and pointless analogy. The horse breeder would be analogous to chipmakers or companies that make computers. Turns out they have more of a job than ever. They don’t need to “become truck drivers.”

> Programmers do not deliver products, they deliver code to make products.

That’s not even a little bit true. Programmers deliver product every day: see every single startup on the planet, and most companies.

Moreover, you said programmer. I didn’t.

I said software engineer/architect, as that was what the parent comment asked.

I chose my words intentionally. I am referring to people who engage in the act of engineering or architecting software, which is definitely not limited to writing code.

Yes, a pure programmer (aka a researcher or a junior programmer) may not fare as well, for the reasons you mentioned.

But that was never who we were discussing.

If you still think the code is the point, I’m not sure we’re going to see eye to eye, and I’m going to just agree to disagree. And if that’s the case, then you’re right: you may be left behind, keyboard in hand.

Re: How I write software with LLMs

#450

Post by stavros » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #445

stavros wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say OS, I said OSS. Open-source software.

Fair mistake on my end, I'm aware of what OSS means but my eyes will have a tendency to skip a letter or two. The same argument applies; because if I write something and release it to the OSS community there's going to be an expectation that A) I know how it works deeply and B) I know if it's reasonably secure when it's dealing with personal data. They can verify this by looking at the code, independently. But if the…

Are you saying you know your code has exactly zero bugs because you wrote it? That's obviously absurd, so what you're really saying is "I'm fairly familiar with all the edge cases and I'm sure that my code has very few issues", which is the same thing I say.

Regardless, though, this argument is a bit like tilting at windmills. Software development has changed, it's never going back, and no matter how many looms you smash, the question now is "how do we make LLM-generated code safer/better/faster/more maintainable", not "how do we put the genie back in the bottle?".

Also I will give myself credit for using three analogies in two sentences.