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

The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

bramcohen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 555 posts

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#471

Post by pieterk »

semicolon_storm wrote: post #14

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.

It's funny how so many of us took this unironically at first.

I stopped using Claude Code a few weeks ago, and realized why I am still glad to use https://pi.dev. I don't miss any of the mess. Bring back Opus 4.5 I would say

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#472

Post by bakugo »

semicolon_storm wrote: post #14

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.

The idea that marketing and hype are more important for success than the quality of the product is not new, and has existed for longer than either of us have been alive.

That does not mean your well-marketed and highly-hyped product is good.

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#474

Post by aaron695 »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #124
scrame wrote: post #7

This is the guy that created bittorrent, btw. I know that was a long time ago, but he's not just some random blogger.

Given his background, you'd think he'd know that he should provide some evidence for his position (instead of making this completely unsupported rant).

[dead]

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#476

Post by tovej »

dolebirchwood wrote: post #393
tovej wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a bit absurd that a semantic debate is happening over a term coined in someone's shower thought tweet. Maybe the real problem is that it's just a stupid phrase that should never have been taken so seriously. But here we are...

I think it's perfectly serviceable. Prompting software into existance is a vibes-based activity, and it's completely at odds with engineering. Which is why it's good that there's a term that conveys this.

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#477

Post by peterldowns »

jkingsman wrote: post #449
physicles wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind sharing that prompt? This is one of my favorite uses for AI too, but I’m just using it to fix the stuff that’s already top of mind for me.

For sure. This is a straight copy-paste of my prompt which references my architecture, codebase, references folder (God, that's so golden -- .gitignored, but saving the tokens of googling or cloning and just having the codebases we depend on locally is killer) so this is not ready to be copy pasted. However, with the context that this is an interface for a peer-to-peer encrypted radio mesh client (for MeshCore; my co…

Thanks for sharing this, going to modify a bit and give it a try.

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#478

Post by tovej »

fragmede wrote: post #319
tovej wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you do not know the code at all, and are going off of "vibes", it's vibecoding. If you can get a deep sense of what is going on in the code based off of looking at a diff every ten commits, then that's not vibe coding (I, myself, are unable to get a sense from that little of a look). If you actually look at the code and understand it and you'd stand by it, then it's not vibecode. If you had an LLM shit it out in 2…

You're repeating the broader definition, great. But your post leaves me with the same question about degrees.

You say there's two cases: no review and full review, "deep sense of the code", and that one is vibe coding and one is not.

What about the degrees in between? At what point does vibe coding become something else?

For example, I would not say "looking at the diffs" to ever be enough review to get a deep sense of what's been done. You need to look at diagrams and systematically presented output to understand any complex system.

Is one person's vibe coding then another persons deep understanding non-vine coding?

If you can answer this question you may be able to convince me.

Re: The cult of vibe coding is dogfooding run amok

#479

Post by tovej »

tedmiston wrote: post #322
tovej wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

we really need some more precise terms here to make that line clear: something like "black-box vibe coding" vs "gray-box vibe coding"

I like those.

Or maybe vibe slop vs. vibe-checked code.

Post reply on HN