>> Startups save weeks getting to MVP with Vibe Coding, then spend comparable time and budget on cleanup. But that’s still faster than traditional development.

> That's the core of situation as described in the article. I wonder how true that is, that it's faster overall than having developers build the MVP.

In a startup it's often very important to show traction, and thus decreasing time to market can be hugely beneficial, even if it costs you more time overall.

The same reason people can rationally take on technical debt in general.

▲

prisenco 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm skeptical "get to market as fast as possible, damn the consequences" is as relevant today as it was 10 years ago.

People have to be careful not to miss their window trying to be perfect, but first and broken isn't a clear winner over second and working anymore.

	▲	Yoric 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with you. There is an advantage to being first on market, but the "damn the consequences" part is very much VC-fueled. Start-ups going to market (and failing) as fast as possible is very much in the financial interest of the VC, but generally good neither the startup nor its employees nor the ecosystem. I've lived through several semi-disastrous VC-pushed early product launches, and have seen some being sufficiently bad to entirely destroy a product, despite it being extremely useful.

▲

theplatman 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is a balance between getting to market as fast as possible and avoiding an architecture that will immediately make it hard to iterate after MVP.

The problem is that a lot of engineers don’t know how to not over engineer and waste time. And product/sales usually don’t know how to strike the balance.