| ▲ | nailer 5 hours ago |
| > what looks like a massive undertaking for vibe coding It doesn’t look like that at all. Do you think that all use of AI is vibe coding? |
|
| ▲ | WD-42 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Did you look at the branch? This is vibed, even with the most liberal definition https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/compare/claude/phase-a-port This single commit is 65k lines of additions https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/ffa6ce211a0267161ae48b... |
| |
| ▲ | nailer 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The definition is at https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383 and no that does not match what is in the branch. Systemically migrating a code base using an LLM does not match the defintion of vibe coding. There's a decent article by Simon Willison that talks about this: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/19/vibe-coding/ > I’m seeing people apply the term “vibe coding” to all forms of code written with the assistance of AI. I think that both dilutes the term and gives a false impression of what’s possible with responsible AI-assisted programming. | | |
| ▲ | WD-42 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You're right, all 750k lines of code added in a single day - definitely reviewed and completely understood. | |
| ▲ | rzmmm 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Here is the Wiktionary definition for curiosity. > (programming, neologism) A method of programming in which a developer generates code by repeatedly prompting a large language model. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vibe_coding | | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The dilution of the term is a real problem sometimes. But pointing your AI at an entire codebase to transpile pretty much entirely by itself? Yeah vibe coding is a fitting term. Even if you wrote it a small essay on how to Rust. That improves the situation but doesn't change the core autonomy/hope of the task. | |
| ▲ | brailsafe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is just a coined term; definitions evolve over time based on usage | | |
| ▲ | kelnos an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Then "vibe coding" is a useless term, if it just means "LLM-assisted coding". We might as well just say "LLM-assisted coding" or "AI coding" or whatever. As much as I find the word "vibe" generally annoying (in all contexts), I actually really like "vibe coding" as "LLM did everything and I didn't even look at it". It's a succinct, useful way to describe that mode of doing things. Diluting it down to "LLM-assisted coding" makes it useless. | | | |
| ▲ | gschizas 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All language is "coined terms". The point is that if you dilute the definition of a term, you make the term useless. Evolution of a term isn't done automatically. Correcting terms such as these pushed the evolution in a more useful way. Also, evolution of language is not a magic spell that automatically forgives people on making language mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | stingraycharles 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the definition of vibe coding is a bit fluid, in this case I just meant it to be “code fully generated by AI, possibly not fully reviewed by human eyes”. I agree that this definitely not “coding based purely off vibes”, and the approach looks legit. |
|
| ▲ | allthetime 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| what would you call a fully uncommented commit with "+27,939Lines changed: 27939 additions & 0 deletions" of new rust code |
| |
| ▲ | LamaOfRuin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The commit would look exactly like that if it was a 100% deterministic transpilation (like Golang did with their original C implementation?). This is obviously very different from that, but the way the commit looks doesn't make it so. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos an hour ago | parent [-] | | The question isn't whether or not you'd get the same line count with a non-LLM tool. The question of whether or not it's vibe-coded depends on whether or not the committer actually reviewed and understood the new code. And with a 75k line difference, that seems unlikely. |
| |
| ▲ | heddhunter 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just another Monday in 2026. | |
| ▲ | vips7L 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The blind leading the blind. | |
| ▲ | geodel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm sure it will be called Systems Programing . Because Rust. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | MarsIronPI 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It depends on what you mean by "vibe coding". Is AI coding based on an existing implementation vibe coding? What about only from a natural-language spec? How does manual reviewing affect whether or not it's vibe coding? |
|
| ▲ | lmm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In practice all use of AI rapidly becomes vibe coding. Even if someone says they're going to carefully manually review everything that's generated, within a couple of days they get bored and just click approve. |
| |
| ▲ | jmull 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While I'm sure you're speaking for many, this is definitely not true across the board. | |
| ▲ | markatto 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is just a matter of priorities - I use LLMs to write code every day and I have never put a single line of code up for review that I didn’t read and understand. | | |
| ▲ | pineapple_opus an hour ago | parent [-] | | I use to do this and then do test manually to validate everything works as expected in my small open source project. But then over the time I saw that some bugs crept in which I was unable track since I was doing manual testing. So I wrote some e2e tests with playwright and I think that gives a bit relief (at least). |
| |
| ▲ | p-e-w 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not to mention that manually writing code is itself a process of understanding. It cannot be replicated by reading code, no matter how carefully. | |
| ▲ | smohare 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
