←back to thread

Ask HN: Worth leaving position over push to adopt vibe coding?

61 points NotAnOtter | 1 comments | 04 Jul 25 22:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source

My company is increasingly pushing prompt engineering as the single way we "should" be coding. The CEO & CTO are both obsessed with it and promote things like "delete entire unit test file & have claude generate a new one" rather than manually address test failures.

I'm a 'senior engineer' with ~5 years of industry experience and am considering moving on from this company because I don't want

1. Be pushed into a workflow that will cause my technical growth to stall or degrade 2. Be overseeing a bunch of AI-generated spaghetti 2-3 years from now

Feel free to address my specific situation but I'm interested in more general opinions.

Show context
muzani ◴[04 Jul 25 23:38 UTC] No.44468896[source]▶
It's the same elsewhere. Some places are actually using it as a way to get rid of people 'resistant to change'. It also remains to be seen what technical skills we need 5 years from now. I did memory management and pointers 15 years ago and I can still do them now.

What I'd suggest is adapt to it, find ways to push back. Obviously things like "delete entire unit test file & have claude generate a new one" is a bad idea. I've seen claude "monkey patching" a system so that it returns true to the tests.

This issue is going to pop up in the future. Experiment with it on the company's dime even if you've checked out emotionally. You are still doing your job - improving code quality and making sure things run.

The new approach seems to be doing TDD. One, as an engineer, you'll know when AI is bullshitting you with mocks. Even when mocks are BS, you can still test the thing they're meant to represent. 2) AI spits more code than anyone can review. The red, green, refactor approach is one way to keep them on the rails.

replies(1): >>44469703 #
1. TheNewsIsHere ◴[05 Jul 25 02:35 UTC] No.44469703[source]▶
> I've seen claude "monkey patching" a system so that it returns true to the tests.

I’ve watched Github Copilot do the same thing. I’ve also seen it doubling down on ridiculous things and just spewing crash-laden messes. There seems to be a low upper ceiling on how “competent” it is, which makes sense.