This is also bad evangelism, but on opposite side.

Just because LLMs don't work for you outside of vibe-coding, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

> LLM evangelists - are you willing to admit that you just might not be that good at programming computers?

Productive usage of LLMs in large scale projects become viable with excellent engineering (tests, patterns, documentation, clean code) so perhaps that question should also be asked to yourself.

▲

j2kun 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you should read the article again, because this comment is a straw man vis-a-vis the article.

▲

hu3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is it?

The article starts from the premise that LLMs are only good for vibe-coding.

▲

krapp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No it doesn't.

It starts from the premise that the author finds LLMs are good for limited, simple tasks with small contexts and clearly defined guidelines, and specifically not good for vibe-coding.

And the author literally mentions that they aren't making universal claims about LLMs, but just speaking from personal experience.

▲

hu3 an hour ago | parent [-]

You're offering a very generous interpretation. To the point of extrapolating what's written. Allow me to exemplify:

> I genuinely don't mind if other people vibe code. Go for it!

> But that is not enough for the vocal proponents. It's the future!

The author is okay for others to voice their positive opinion about LLMs as long as it is limited to vibe coding.

It starts defining a gatekeeping threshold of what level of positive opinion is acceptable for others to have, according to the author.

	▲	krapp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing in the text you quoted implies anything of the sort, and you're moving the goalposts. Good day.