> I'm rewriting k10s in Rust. Not because Rust is better but, because it's the language I can steer. I've written enough of it to feel when something's wrong before I can articulate why. That instinct is the one thing vibe-coding can't replace. The AI hands you plausible-looking code. You need a nose for when it's garbage.

Isn't Golang relatively easier to read than Rust? I was under the impression that Rust is a more complex language syntactically.

> The other change is simpler: I'm doing the design work myself, by hand, before any code gets written. Not a vague doc. Concrete interfaces, message types, ownership rules. The architecture decisions that the AI kept making wrong are now made in writing before the first prompt.

This post is good to grasp the difference between "vibe-coding" and using the AI to help with design and architectural choices done by a competent programmer (I am not saying you are not one). Lately I feel that Opus 4.7 involves the user a lot more, even when given a prompt to one-shot a particular piece of software.

▲

dropbox_miner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Go reads fine whether the architecture is good or bad, and I couldn't tell the difference until I was in trouble. Rust is harder to read but harder to misuse. The borrow checker would have caught that data race at compile time. I've also just written more Rust. That familiarity matters separately.

+1 on Open 4.7 involving the user a lot more. Rn I'm trying to get to a state where I can codify my design + decision preferences as agents personas and push myself out of the dev loop.

▲

ok_dad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Buddy that k10s code was never good. Go vs Rust is not the issue here, it’s the fact the project was vibe coded without reading anything. It’s hilarious to even think that a god model was caused by anything other than someone who let the bot choose too much.

Good architecture in any language is obvious to someone who is experienced and cares.

Go is actually great for bots to write if you’re actually thinking.

▲

binyu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Gotcha, that implies you are going to read the code that the AI produces anyways.

> Go reads fine whether the architecture is good or bad

Were you reading the Golang code all along and got fooled or did you review it after it failed? Sorry I admit I didn't read the whole article.

▲

williamstein 5 hours ago | parent [-]

He was NOT reading the code: "For 7 months I'd been prompting and shipping without ever sitting down and actually reading the code Claude wrote."

	▲	binyu 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, thank you. Personally I think reading all the code that the AI produces is impossible and kind of defeats the purpose of using it. The key is to devise a structured way to interact with it (skills and similar) and use extensive testing along the way to verify the work at all steps.

▲

cortesoft 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Isn't Golang relatively easier to read than Rust? I was under the impression that Rust is a more complex language syntactically

It sounds like the author knows Rust, and might not be as familiar with Go.

A language that you are proficient in is always going to be easier read than one you don’t, even if it is an objectively easier language to to read in general.

	▲	travisgriggs 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In a world where juniors (or seniors in new territories) are incentivized to publish or perish, how will any of us gain proficiency any more? I can see the agent assisted journey accelerating some familiarity, but not proficiency. I’ve used AI tools to do i18n translations to Spanish and Portuguese (somewhat ashamed to admit this). I’ve grown more familiar with the structure of these languages, and come to recognize some of the common vocabulary for our agtech domain. If anything, I feel more clueless about both languages now than I did before, when it comes to any sort of proficiency.