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

Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

outofdesk.netlify.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#61

Post by rolisz »

Antibabelic wrote: post #57
dotancohen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm now using an LLM to write a voice note organisation application that I have been dreaming about for two decades. I did vibe code the first version. It runs, but it is utterly unmaintainable. I'm now rewriting it using the LLM as if it were a junior or outsourced programmer (not a developer, that remains my job) and I go over every line of application code. I love it, I'm pushing out decent quality code and very f…

> I would have never gotten to this stage of my dream project without AI tooling. Why not? People have been writing successful personal projects without LLMs for years.

Not grandparent, but I'm in the same boat. I've been dreaming for almost 10 years of building a sort of digital bullet journal. I had some feeble attempts to start, but never got to the point where I could actually use it. Last year I started again, heavily LLM assisted. After 1-2 weeks (this was before agents), I had something usable, from which I could benefit, which wanted to make me improve it more, which made me want to use it more.

By now it's grown to 100k lines of code. I've not read all of them, but I do have a high level overview of the app, I've done several refactorings to keep it maintainable.

This would not have happened without AI agents. I don't have the time, period. With AI agents, I can kickoff a task while I'm going to the park with my kids. Instead of scrolling HN, I look every now and then to what the agent is doing.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#62

Post by mckn1ght »

Lyngbakr wrote: post #33
sigmarule wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you writing software for the sense of accomplishment or to create software you wish you had?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Conversely, one is not necessarily a prerequisite for the other.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#63

Post by redhale »

habinero wrote: post #52
brap wrote: post #23

Great vision for 2030. But as for today, have we all just collectively decided to pretend that the LLMs we have are capable of writing good software? I use LLMs a lot in my workflow, I probably spend a whole day per week learning and fiddling with new tools, techniques, etc. and trying to integrate them in all sorts of ways. Been at it for about a year and a half, mainly because I’m intrigued. I’m sorry but it still…

Most of them are, yeah. There are a lot of Idea Guys on here, who are in love with the idea that they no longer need effort or skills to Create Their Vision. If they can just prompt hard enough, success will come rolling in.

Did either of you read the article? You seem to be arguing against a point it doesn't make. Tools like Claude Code are entirely capable today of one-shotting tiny bespoke web apps that do a narrow set of things for an audience of one.

The article isn't talking about "large brownfield projects" or people wanting "success [to] come rolling in". It's about people making little apps for themselves, for personal enjoyment, not profit.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#64

Post by redhale »

jesse__ wrote: post #6

By the authors definition, I've been writing perfect software for over a decade. It's never required LLMs. In fact, I think the idea that "LLMs allow us to write software for ourselves" borders on missing the point, for me at least. I write software for myself because I like the exploratory process .. figuring out how do do something such that it works with as little friction as possible from the side of the user; wh…

Both can be true.

Some people enjoy cooking. Some people enjoy eating great food. Some people enjoy both. Some people enjoy cooking certain things, and also like eating things they would never bother cooking themselves.

There is nothing wrong with any of these perspectives.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#65

Post by PunchyHamster »

Lyngbakr wrote: post #21

I was nodding along enthusiastically right up until LLMs and that point we sharply diverge. For me, part of creating "perfect" software is that I am very much the one crafting the software. I'm learning while creating, but I find such learning is greatly diminished when I outsource building to AI. It's certainly harder and perhaps my software is worse, but for me the sense of achievement is also much greater.

I definitely made software for me with zero desire to learn, zero learning happening, just to scratch an itch.

that being said calling it "perfect" is on the nose, at least for my own, it does a thing, it does it good enough, and that's all. It could be better but it won't be because it's not worth it, because it's good enough

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#66

Post by lelanthran »

rolisz wrote: post #61
Antibabelic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have never gotten to this stage of my dream project without AI tooling. Why not? People have been writing successful personal projects without LLMs for years.

Not grandparent, but I'm in the same boat. I've been dreaming for almost 10 years of building a sort of digital bullet journal. I had some feeble attempts to start, but never got to the point where I could actually use it. Last year I started again, heavily LLM assisted. After 1-2 weeks (this was before agents), I had something usable, from which I could benefit, which wanted to make me improve it more, which made me…

> By now it's grown to 100k lines of code

Did you add an extra zero there? A journal with 100k lines of code, presumably not counting the framework it is built on?

That doesn't sound correct.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#67

Post by jmathai »

MostlyStable wrote: post #58

Of all the topics to judge LLM use, this seems the least appropriate. This is about people making software for themselves and no one else . Your opinion on the quality of their software is entirely beside the point. No one is ever going to force you to use an LLM to make personal software. And no one is ever going to force you to use LLM-generated software that was explicitely made and intended to be used only by the…

Thanks to LLMs, I have revived personal projects that became too time consuming and complex to familiarize myself with again.

While I enjoy the challenge of writing software, I more enjoy having the thing which does exactly what I want.

LLMs are amazing for this.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#68

Post by conartist6 »

analogpixel wrote: post #24
Lyngbakr wrote: post #21

I was nodding along enthusiastically right up until LLMs and that point we sharply diverge. For me, part of creating "perfect" software is that I am very much the one crafting the software. I'm learning while creating, but I find such learning is greatly diminished when I outsource building to AI. It's certainly harder and perhaps my software is worse, but for me the sense of achievement is also much greater.

I find that most of the time, programming is just procrastination, and having the LLM there breaks through that procrastination and lets me focus on the idea I was thinking on without going into the weeds. A lot of the time, the LLM outputs the code, I test my idea, and realize I really don't care or the idea wasn't that great, and now I can move on to something else.

What!

Why is this, idunno a better way to say it, good?

So ok you don't get into the weeds and you're proud of that, but also nothing you can think of wanting to do turns out to be worth doing.

Those things are wholly related. Opportunity never comes exactly the time and the way you expect. You have to be open to it, you have to be seeking out new experiences and new ideas. You have to get into the weeds and try things without being entirely sure what the outcome might be, what insight you might gain, or when that insight might become useful.

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#69

Post by dotancohen »

rolisz wrote: post #61
Antibabelic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have never gotten to this stage of my dream project without AI tooling. Why not? People have been writing successful personal projects without LLMs for years.

Not grandparent, but I'm in the same boat. I've been dreaming for almost 10 years of building a sort of digital bullet journal. I had some feeble attempts to start, but never got to the point where I could actually use it. Last year I started again, heavily LLM assisted. After 1-2 weeks (this was before agents), I had something usable, from which I could benefit, which wanted to make me improve it more, which made me…

  > With AI agents, I can kickoff a task while I'm going to the park with my kids. Instead of scrolling HN, I look every now and then to what the agent is doing.
How does that work? Are you running the agents on a server? Are you using gnu screen and termux? Can you respond to prompts asking for permission to e.g. run ls or grep?

Re: Perfect Software – Software for an Audience of One

#70

Post by mgaunard »

pedrogpimenta wrote: post #20
mgaunard wrote: post #17

The comparison to coffee is bad, since it's obvious the best coffee is with no sugar and no milk.

I agree, but it is there: perfect amount of sugar: 0, perfect milk-to-coffee ratio: 0 to 1. What really gets on my nerves is the justified text...

My point is that it's not a personal amount, but an absolute constant.

If you need to mix other things with it, then the coffee isn't good.

Post reply on HN