People yeating a (shitty) Github clone with Claude in a week apparently can't imagine it, but if you know the shit out of Rails, start with a good a boiler plate, and have a good git library, a solo dev can also build a (shitty) Github clone in a week. And they'll be able to take it somewhere, unlike the llm ratsnest that will require increasingly expensive tokens to (frustratingly) modify.
That's not how you prove that code works properly and isn't going to fail due to some obscure or unforessen corner case. You need actual proof that's driven by the code's overall structure. Humans do this at least informally when they code, AI's can't do that with any reliability, especially not for non-trivial projects (for reasons that are quite structural and hard to change) so most coding agents simply work their way iteratively to get their test results to pass. That's not a robust methodology.
Yes it is. What do you expect, formal verification of a toy GUI library? Get real.
> and isn't going to fail due to some obscure or unforessen corner case.
That's called "a bug", they get fixed when they're found. This isn't aerospace software, failure is not only an option, it's an expected part of the process.
> You need actual proof that's driven by the code's overall structure.
I literally don't.
> Humans do this at least informally when they code, AI's can't do that with any reliability
Sounds like a borderline theological argument. Coding agents one-shot problems a lot more often than I ever did. Results are what matters, demonstrable results.
So? We didn't prove human code "isn't going to fail due to some obscure or unforessen corner case" either (aside the tiny niche of formal verification).
So from that aspect it's quite similar.
>so most coding agents simply work their way iteratively to get their test results to pass. That's not a robust methodology.
You seem to imply they do some sort of random iteration until the tests pass, which is not the case. Usually they can see the test failing, and describe the issue exactly in the way a human programmer would, then fix it.
Human programmers don't usually hallucinate things out of thin air, AIs like to do that a whole lot. So no, they aren't working the exact same way.
One might argue that this is a substitute for metaprogramming, not software developers.
At my own firm, we generally have a rule we do almost everything through metaprogramming.
Objectively, my GitHub clone is still shitty, BUT it got several ways github is shitty out of my way and allowed me to add several features I wanted, no small one of which was GitHub not owning my data.
I don't know the shit out of Rails and I don't want to, I know the shit out of other things and I want the tools I'm using to be better and Claude is making that happen.
It's a little odd the skepticism to the level that people keep telling me I'm delusional for being satisfied that I've created something useful for myself. The opposition to AI/LLMs seems to be growing into a weird morality cult trying to convince everybody else that they're leading unhappy immoral lives. I'm exaggerating but it's looking like things are going in that direction... and in my house, so to speak, here on HN there are factions. Like programming language zealots but worse.
Hobby-project vibe coding is pretty cool (if I'm being honest, its fucking miraculous; this tech is wild) but isn't it clear that there's a problem with the linkedincels, the investors, the management that are all convinced this will remove say 50% of programming jobs? I understand these things have legitimate uses, but I'm at my wits end hearing about how deep understanding, craftsmanship, patience and hard work aren't "results oriented".
There's definitely zealotry developing against AI, but I suspect it is a proportional (if unhelpful) response to the hype machine. Is it really zealotry to insist on the value of your mind and your competence? These people saying you should never "hand write" your code-- how the fuck did the discourse move so much that this isn't a laughably stupid thing to say? "I'm a CEO, and if you aren't using consultants to make your decisions you've already lost"
These people have always been doing this. Starting in the 90s it was outsourcing programming jobs, they were right then, they got more work for less money and you could have less expertise on staff farming out work somewhere else that was cheaper. You also got worse results sometimes. So it goes.
LLMs are making people more powerful and sucking a lot of income off to the people who provide them. Yup. It makes idiot shysters more powerful just the same as it makes experts more powerful.
People are acting like the software engineering industry is full of fine artistry building the finest bespoke tools instead of duct taping rocks to sticks. I'm sorry but there is a tremendous amount of crap out there by people who barely know what they're doing.
Yes new technology empowers idiots, but it also empowers smart people and if you use it well it'll lead to more quality. Yes you're going to have the same problems you had before of someone doing something cheaply competing with someone trying to be careful to build something well. There also will continue to be idiots spouting off about it.
Nothing changed but the tools got more powerful and people are whining complaining about this change this time ruining everything. Like they always have forever.
