I think many people are missing the overall meaning of these sorts of posts.. that is they are describing a new type of programmer that will only use agents and never read the underlying code. These vibe/agent coders will use natural(-ish) language to communicate with the agents and wouldn't look at the code anymore than, say, a PHP developer would look at the underlying assembly. It is not the level of abstraction they are working on. There are many use cases where this type of coding will work fine and it will let many people who previously couldn't really take advantage of computers to do so. This is great but in no way will do anything to replace the need for code that requires humans to understand (which, in turn, requires participation in the writing).

▲

jkhdigital 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your analogy to PHP developers not reading assembly got me thinking.

Early resistance to high-level (i.e. compiled) languages came from assembly programmers who couldn’t imagine that the compiler could generate code that was just as performant as their hand-crafted product. For a while they were right, but improved compiler design and the relentless performance increases in hardware made it so that even an extra 10-20% boost you might get from perfectly hand-crafted assembly was almost never worth the developer time.

There is an obvious parallel here, but it’s not quite the same. The high-level language is effectively a formal spec for the abstract machine which is faithfully translated by the (hopefully bug-free) compiler. Natural language is not a formal spec for anything, and LLM-based agents are not formally verifiable software. So the tradeoffs involved are not only about developer time vs. performance, but also correctness.

	▲	andai 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> So the tradeoffs involved are not only about developer time vs. performance, but also correctness. The "now that producing plausible code is free, verification becomes the bottleneck" people are technically right, of course, but I think they're missing the context that very few projects cared much about correctness to begin with. The biggest headache I can see right now is just the humans keeping track of all the new code, because it arrives faster than they can digest it. But I guess "let go of the need to even look at the code" "solves" that problem, for many projects... Strange times! For example -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- OpenClaw was itself almost entirely written by AI, and the developer bragged about not reading the code. If anything, in this niche, that actually helped the project's success, rather than harming it. (In the case of Windows 11 recently.. not so much ;)
	▲	bandrami 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		OK but, I've definitely read the assembly listings my C compiler produced when it wasn't working like I hoped. Even if that's not all that frequent it's something I expect I have to do from time to time and is definitely part of "programming".
	▲	drawnwren 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's also important to remember that vibe coders throw away the natural language spec each time they close the context window. Vibe coding is closer to compiling your code, throwing the source away and asking a friend to give you source that is pretty close to the one you wrote.
	▲	ytoawwhra92 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		For a great many software projects no formal spec exists. The code is the spec, and it gets modified constantly based on user feedback and other requirements that often appear out of nowhere. For many projects, maybe ~80% of the thinking about how the software should work happens after some version of the software exists and is being used to do meaningful work. Put another way, if you don't know what correct is before you start working then no tradeoff exists.
	▲	HansHamster 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> which is faithfully translated by the (hopefully bug-free) compiler. "Hey Claude, translate this piece of PHP code into Power10 assembly!"
	▲	QuadmasterXLII 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Imagine if high level coding worked like: write a first draft, and get assembly. All subsequent high level code is written in a repl and expresses changes to the assembly, or queries the state of the assembly, and is then discarded. only the assembly is checked into version control.

▲

straydusk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm glad you wrote this comment because I completely agree with it. I don't think that there is not a need for software engineers to deeply consider architecture; who can fully understand the truly critical systems that exist at most software companies; who can help dream up the harness capabilities to make these agents work better.

I just am describing what I'm doing now, and what I'm seeing at the leading edge of using these tools. It's a different approach - but I think it'll become the most common way of producing software.

▲

re-thc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> that is they are describing a new type of programmer that will only use agents and never read the underlying code

> and wouldn't look at the code anymore than, say, a PHP developer would look at the underlying assembly

This really puts down the work that the PHP maintainers have done. Many people spend a lot of time crafting the PHP codebase so you don't have to look at the underlying assembly. There is a certain amount of trust that I as a PHP developer assume.

Is this what the agents do? No. They scrape random bits of code everywhere and put something together with no craft. How do I know they won't hide exploits somewhere? How do I know they don't leak my credentials?