If you want proof that there's a serious issue with vibe-coding over the long-term, all you need to do is be a Claude Code user and see how for every release they make they either create 5 new bugs, or re-introduce 5 they've already patched 15 times over the last year.

The creators of Claude can't even vibe-code well. Claude Code is one of the sloppiest, least stable tools I've ever used. Anthropic has already proudly boasted about Claude Code is entirely vibe-coded and vibe-maintained. It's not a flex. It's a signal not to trust it.

> The creators of Claude can't even vibe-code well. Claude Code is one of the sloppiest, least stable tools I've ever used

Claude Code was not designed on a stable architecture and was completely vibe-coded itself on a weekend so much that the authors can't read the code and are instead more like sales focused than engineering focused other than the Bun authors who are doing the actual work.

If it wasn't for the Bun developers, Claude Code itself would become completely unmaintainable.

Any specific example? Because in regular use, it's hassle free.

If they want to stop feature development and focus on stability, they can.

But given how few people are working on Claude Code and how many features it keeps on adding (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47495527), I think Claude Code is doing fine.

As a user of Claude Code...

I wouldn't use it to write anything mission critical like calculating the trajectory of a NASA spacecraft or something.

But there's tons of software out there that's equal or lower quality to Claude Code itself, or to what you can make with Claude Code, that is useful and serving a purpose. "Quality" is always relative to what is needed, what the market will bear, etc.