|
| ▲ | simlevesque 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah but you're leaving out a crucial part: the code is full of useless comments. That leaves 2 options: - they didn't read the code themselves to ensure it's valid - they did read the code themselves but left the useless comments No matter which happened it shows they're a bad developer and I don't want to run their code. |
|
| ▲ | Mechanical9 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| IMO reading code is usually harder than writing code. |
|
| ▲ | rustman123 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The comments aren’t the problem. |
|
| ▲ | sgammon 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I usually try to strip the pointless comments You could add your own instead, explaining how things work? > It's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself Sure, but then it would not be vibecoding. |
| |
| ▲ | cbsmith 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> It's possible to ask AI to write code and then read the code yourself > Sure, but then it would not be vibecoding. Wait, what? | | |
| ▲ | sgammon 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | AI assisted coding/engineering becomes "vibe coding" when you decide to abdicate any understanding of what you are building, instead focusing only on the outcome | |
| ▲ | the_af 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Vibe-coding as originally defined (by Karpathy?) implied not reading the code at all, just trying it and pasting back any error codes; repeat ad infinitum until it works or you give up. Now the term has evolved into "using AI in coding" (usually with a hint of non rigor/casualness), but that's not what it originally meant. |
|
|
