Live data from Hacker News

Vibe coding is the fast fashion industry of software engineering

pdelboca.me

71–74 of 74 posts

Re: Vibe coding is the fast fashion industry of software engineering

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I can predict a huge gulf between pre-vibe senior engs and post-vibe lazy learners: the seniors get massive amplification and meanwhile those on the ground floor are not learning, and even gradually loose what little they did learn

I have to add that working effectively with LLMs is a skill too, mostly in terms of prompting and system level prompts to skip _most_ of the fabrication and nonsense. They have to be explicitly told often to keep things brief, non-fiction and non-sycophantic. Then you still need to curate responses, but less so.

Agreed, and being productive with Claude Code and similar cli tools requires being deliberate about creating docs for background info, spec, and implementation plan, and final implementation notes.

Re: Vibe coding is the fast fashion industry of software engineering

#72
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think AI is producing low quality code? I asked for a very, very simple bash script to test code generation abilities once. The AI got it spectacularly wrong. So wrong that it was ridiculous. Here's my reason why I think it does produce low quality code; because it does.

I feel like sooner or later the standard for these types of discussions should become: > "Here's a link to the commits in my GitHub repo, here's the exact prompts and models that were used that generated bad output. This exact example proves my point beyond a doubt." I've used Claude Sonnet 4 and Google Gemini 2.5 Pro to pretty good results otherwise, with RooCode - telling it what to look for in a codebase, to come…

That's a lot of words to defend the undefendable

Re: Vibe coding is the fast fashion industry of software engineering

#73
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like sooner or later the standard for these types of discussions should become: > "Here's a link to the commits in my GitHub repo, here's the exact prompts and models that were used that generated bad output. This exact example proves my point beyond a doubt." I've used Claude Sonnet 4 and Google Gemini 2.5 Pro to pretty good results otherwise, with RooCode - telling it what to look for in a codebase, to come…

That's a lot of words to defend the undefendable

> Here's my reason why I think it does produce low quality code; because it does.

I’d say that the original claim is so context dependent that it bothers on being outright wrong.

That’s like saying that Java sucks because I’ve seen a few bad projects in Java.

Post reply on HN