←back to thread

Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

(antirez.com)
600 points antirez | 9 comments | 20 Jul 25 11:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
dakiol ◴[20 Jul 25 14:22 UTC] No.44625484[source]▶
> Gemini 2.5 PRO | Claude Opus 4

Whether it's vibe coding, agentic coding, or copy pasting from the web interface to your editor, it's still sad to see the normalization of private (i.e., paid) LLM models. I like the progress that LLMs introduce and I see them as a powerful tool, but I cannot understand how programmers (whether complete nobodies or popular figures) dont mind adding a strong dependency on a third party in order to keep programming. Programming used to be (and still is, to a large extent) an activity that can be done with open and free tools. I am afraid that in a few years, that will no longer be possible (as in most programmers will be so tied to a paid LLM, that not using them would be like not using an IDE or vim nowadays), since everyone is using private LLMs. The excuse "but you earn six figures, what' $200/month to you?" doesn't really capture the issue here.

replies(46): >>44625521 #>>44625545 #>>44625564 #>>44625827 #>>44625858 #>>44625864 #>>44625902 #>>44625949 #>>44626014 #>>44626067 #>>44626198 #>>44626312 #>>44626378 #>>44626479 #>>44626511 #>>44626543 #>>44626556 #>>44626981 #>>44627197 #>>44627415 #>>44627574 #>>44627684 #>>44627879 #>>44628044 #>>44628982 #>>44629019 #>>44629132 #>>44629916 #>>44630173 #>>44630178 #>>44630270 #>>44630351 #>>44630576 #>>44630808 #>>44630939 #>>44631290 #>>44632110 #>>44632489 #>>44632790 #>>44632809 #>>44633267 #>>44633559 #>>44633756 #>>44634841 #>>44635028 #>>44636374 #
1. jstummbillig ◴[20 Jul 25 15:14 UTC] No.44625949[source]▶
> Programming used to be (and still is, to a large extent) an activity that can be done with open and free tools.

Since when? It starts with computers, the main tool and it's architecture not being free and goes from there. Major compilers used to not be free. Major IDEs used to not be free. For most things there were decent and (sometimes) superior free alternatives. The same is true for LLMs.

> The excuse "but you earn six figures, what' $200/month to you?" doesn't really capture the issue here.

That "excuse" could exactly capture the issue. It does not, because you chose to make it a weirder issue. Just as before: You will be free to either not use LLMs, or use open-source LLMs, or use paid LLMs. Just as before in the many categories that pertain to programming. It all comes at a cost, that you might be willing to pay and somebody else is free to really does not care that much about.

replies(2): >>44626058 #>>44626652 #
2. randallsquared ◴[20 Jul 25 15:24 UTC] No.44626058[source]▶
> Major compilers used to not be free. Major IDEs used to not be free.

There were and are a lot of non-free ones, but since the 1990s, GCC and interpreted languages and Linux and Emacs and Eclipse and a bunch of kinda-IDEs were all free, and now VS Code is one of the highest marketshare IDEs, and those are all free. Also, the most used and learned programming language is JS, which doesn't need compilers in the first place.

replies(1): >>44626155 #
3. jstummbillig ◴[20 Jul 25 15:32 UTC] No.44626155[source]▶
There are free options and there continue to be non-free options. The same is true for LLMs.
replies(1): >>44626202 #
4. vorador ◴[20 Jul 25 15:36 UTC] No.44626202{3}[source]▶
When's the last time you paid for a compiler?
replies(1): >>44626392 #
5. jstummbillig ◴[20 Jul 25 15:54 UTC] No.44626392{4}[source]▶
The original point was that there is some inherent tradition in programming being free, with a direct critique wrt LLMs, which apparently breaks that tradition.

And my point is that's simply not the case. Different products have always been not free, and continue to be not free. Recent example would be something like Unity, that is not entirely free, but has competitors, which are entirely free and open source. JetBrain is something someone else brought up.

Again: You have local LLMs and I have every expectation they will improve. What exactly are we complaining about? That people continue to build products that are not free and, gasp, other people will pay for them, as they always have?

6. bluefirebrand ◴[20 Jul 25 16:20 UTC] No.44626652[source]▶
> Major compilers used to not be free

There's never been anything stopping you from building your own

Soon there will be. The knowledge of how to do so will be locked behind LLMs, and other sources of knowledge will be rarer and harder to find as a result of everything switching to LLM use

replies(1): >>44626874 #
7. jstummbillig ◴[20 Jul 25 16:43 UTC] No.44626874[source]▶
For the past decades knowledge was "locked" behind search engines. Could you have rolled your own search engine indexing the web, to unlock that knowledge? Yes, in the same theoretical way that you can roll your own LLM.
replies(1): >>44626906 #
8. bluefirebrand ◴[20 Jul 25 16:46 UTC] No.44626906{3}[source]▶
There was never anything stopping you from finding other avenues than Search Engines to get people to find your website. You could find a url on a board at a cafe and still find a website without a search engine. More local sure, but knowledge had ways to spread in the real world when it needed to

How are LLMs equivalent? People posting their prompts on bulletin boards at cafes?

replies(1): >>44627121 #
9. retsibsi ◴[20 Jul 25 17:07 UTC] No.44627121{4}[source]▶
But what is (or will be) stopping you from finding avenues other than LLMs? You say other sources of knowledge will be rarer. But they will still exist, and I don't see why they will become less accessible than non-search-engine-indexed content is now.