| ▲ | stillpointlab 4 hours ago |
| My advice is to start a totally vibe coded side project. You will never gain confidence until you experiment, find the failure cases, learn to deal with them, etc. Choose something you want to do but don't really care that much about. Be more ambitious than you think you could be, have a high bar on the outcome but purposefully choose to completely ignore the actual code. Make it write tests, dashboards, monitoring - whatever you need other than code to feel confident. Now is the cheapest time it will ever be to experiment. |
|
| ▲ | 72deluxe 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I did this, but now I have a useful piece of software that I have zero clue regarding how it works. My only chance of "maintaining" it is giving it to another LLM to explain. I am happy that I have a useful tool, but it simply isn't maintainable without a machine or me investing much time to understand it. I don't see how the former is a sensible future for humanity. I am happy to say I won't be releasing this software I've created (I will find it useful myself), but deferring all understanding to a black box seems a poor future for brain activity. |
|
| ▲ | xboxnolifes 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've done this, and always get subpar results. I cant get the LLM to make the minor tweaks I want to see, and now I have no mental model of the code to make the fix myself. Sometimes they arent minor things. |
|
| ▲ | xyzsparetimexyz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ridiculous suggestion. If someone already takes issue with ai generated code (as well they should, it often is _still_ pretty bad), getting them to write more of it is useless. Additionally, do you really believe that 'Now is the cheapest time it will ever be to experiment'? Why so? Because of token prices? Not a good omen if so. |
| |
| ▲ | stillpointlab an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure what is ridiculous about suggesting people take a stance of openness and curiousness when confronted with new situations. I genuinely don't understand what people have to lose by building some throw-away experiments without reading the code. I do believe the subsidies offered on Pro accounts driven by the current competition make access to the best coding models and harnesses as cheap as they will ever be. | | |
| ▲ | xyzsparetimexyz an hour ago | parent [-] | | >I do believe the subsidies offered on Pro accounts driven by the current competition make access to the best coding models and harnesses as cheap as they will ever be. God I hope you're right. Maybe then this era of vibe slopping out photoshop clones that'll be abandoned within a week (while advertising them all over social media) will come to a close. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mattm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have done this. It's exactly the reason I went back to doing code review. I don't look at the code with a fine toothed comb, but it does help me catch bad patterns early. |
| |
| ▲ | stillpointlab an hour ago | parent [-] | | I guess the question is: did the project you worked on fail? As in, you couldn't achieve the outcome you were trying to achieve? Or at some point did you sneak a look at the code and recoil in revulsion? What was the failure state? Was this with the latest models (Fable/Opus 5.5 or equivalent) or an older model in a 3rd party harness? Are you in the camp of: "if at first you don't succeed, never ever try again". | | |
| ▲ | hn_acct-1029393 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not parent, but project I was involved in was shipped very quickly, had many bugs, and burned a lot of customer trust. This was a few months ago, so obviously not with the latest models, but: 1. That argument is evergreen. You will always be able to make it, and it doesn’t really add much. It is impossible to refute. 2. Gone back to - when writing code - having a strict mental modal and good control over the codebase. A mix of hand coding (to establish the mental modal) and prompting (for boilerplate). It’s not quite as fast, but the quality is much higher when you mix in using LLMs in quality enhancing capacities (review, debug, etc). This is with the latest model. Hands off still atrophies over time (even the boilerplate), and in some cases is very inefficient (as in wasting my time, nothing to be said about tokens). > Are you in the camp of: "if at first you don't succeed, never ever try again". This is great in some domains, but “don’t make the same mistake twice” is much more important in mine. I don’t have the luxury to ship low quality, especially when LLMs make even higher quality so much easier. | | |
| ▲ | stillpointlab 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think people are moving the goal post here. My post suggested starting a vibe coded side project, one where failure is low stakes and has no consequences. You are talking about shipping a production system to customers. If you cannot tolerate failure then don't experiment. Don't mix the two. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | dang 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Please don't do this here. (You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course.) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | |
| ▲ | xyzsparetimexyz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Please don't do this whole 'Please don't do this here.' thing here. Their 'WAT' was self explanatory. |
| |
| ▲ | stillpointlab 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Issue: I am still unable to stop myself from doing line-by-line code review Response: Try experimenting in a low stakes environment From Google: "Exposure therapy is a psychological treatment designed to help people confront their fears, break cycles of avoidance, and reduce anxiety." | | |
| ▲ | g-b-r 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing is that's not an issue in the slightest, it doesn't need therapy!! It's those who don't do it who'd need a talk..! | | |
| ▲ | stillpointlab 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think that depends on where you work. If your company demands that all code is reviewed then anyone who doesn't do that should be spoken to. However, I suspect there are teams that are making different choices. In the most obvious example, I can do whatever I want on my personal projects (I hope you agree). And if I started a business and hire in programmers, I have some expectation on defining the culture, making hiring decisions based on my preferences, etc. Whether or not such teams succeed will be a matter of fact, which I do not believe has been decided at this time. | |
| ▲ | 9dev 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hate to say this, but you're now living in a world where the value of artisanal code is rapidly approaching zero. If you still cling to beautifully written code as your core qualification, you're having a rough future ahead of you. And I say this with the bitterness of someone having lost a big part of what made me enjoy this line of work. | | |
| ▲ | g-b-r an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's not wrong right now, we'll see in the future. But I have no interest in working as a vibecoder, there are many other jobs that I'd enjoy more |
|
| |
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. The issue is: "I notice too many things (redundant code, duplicate code, overly complex architecture, etc.) during review" How does "low-stakes environment" fix that? | | |
| ▲ | stillpointlab 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because one may learn that those fears are overblown. Or they may learn that they cannot build any kind of software without reviewing every line of code. The person is saying "I am still unable to stop" and that is most likely because they feel a sense of responsibility. If they choose a project where there is no responsibility, where it literally doesn't matter if the project fails, they may feel able to stop. And if they manage to make that project work, if they can succeed, then they will build up confidence. It seems better to be able to work both on projects where they review all code as well as projects where they do not review any code. In fact, keeping their job in the long term may (or may not) require having both skills. | | |
| ▲ | daveguy an hour ago | parent [-] | | yolo'ing a code complexity generator doesn't make it suddenly stop being a code complexity generator. |
| |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guess they’re just saying “you’re holding it wrong” Last time I chose to vibe code, I did it in a language I didn’t know so that I wasn’t tempted to try and comprehend the choices the robot made. I ended up with the application I wanted. Caveat: it was code I would never have to touch again, I ran a script to generate the 140,000 static html pages that the rails app provided and then just uploaded them all to R2 buckets (million reads per month on free tier) |
|
| |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the intended takeaway is to learn to solve those problems without line by line review. Start by being hands off on a low stakes project, and see how the model fails. Then, come up with, and try, solutions that aren't you doing archeology. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This somehow assumes that the person above doesn't already do all the magic the people say work 100% of the time, and finds these issues. How does running into literally the same issues in a low-stakes project help? | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it's a good assumption. Their comment implies they aren't harnessing the coding agent very strongly given the failure modes they mention. Do you think it's better to experiment with high stakes projects? Do you think it'll be easier to avoid defaulting to line by line auditing of a project that is high stakes? |
|
|
|