←back to thread

925 points dmitrybrant | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
theptip ◴[] No.45163517[source]
A good case study. I have found these two to be good categories of win:

> Use these tools as a massive force multiplier of your own skills.

Claude definitely makes me more productive in frameworks I know well, where I can scan and pattern-match quickly on the boilerplate parts.

> Use these tools for rapid onboarding onto new frameworks.

I’m also more productive here, this is an enabler to explore new areas, and is also a boon at big tech companies where there are just lots of tech stacks and frameworks in use.

I feel there is an interesting split forming in ability to gauge AI capabilities - it kinda requires you to be on top of a rapidly-changing firehose of techniques and frameworks. If you haven’t spent 100 hours with Claude Code / Claude 4.0 you likely don’t have an accurate picture of its capabilities.

“Enables non-coders to vibe code their way into trouble” might be the median scenario on X, but it’s not so relevant to what expert coders will experience if they put the time in.

replies(16): >>45163642 #>>45163857 #>>45163954 #>>45163957 #>>45164146 #>>45164186 #>>45165282 #>>45165556 #>>45166441 #>>45166708 #>>45167115 #>>45167361 #>>45168913 #>>45169267 #>>45178891 #>>45193900 #
meesles ◴[] No.45163857[source]
> Use these tools as a massive force multiplier of your own skills.

I've felt this learning just this week - it's taken me having to create a small project with 10 clear repetitions, messily made from AI input. But then the magic is making 'consolidation' tasks where you can just guide it into unifying markup, styles/JS, whatever you may have on your hands.

I think it was less obvious to me in my day job because in a startup with a lack of strong coding conventions, it's harder to apply these pattern-matching requests since there are fewer patterns. I can imagine in a strict, mature codebase this would be way more effective.

replies(1): >>45164260 #
rmoriz ◴[] No.45164260[source]
In times of Rust and Typescript (just examples) coding standards are explicit. It‘s not optional anymore. All my vibe coding projects are using CI with tests including style and type checks. The agent makes mistakes but it sees the failing tests and fixes it. If you vibe code like we did Perl and PHP in 1999 you‘re gonna have a bad time.
replies(1): >>45165275 #
baq ◴[] No.45165275[source]
In a startup, especially early, the only thing that isn't optional is shipping. You can fix any and all issues later, first you have to ensure there is a 'later'. (That's not to say you shouldn't do it at all, but definitely focus on the business before the tech.)
replies(1): >>45165858 #
1. rmoriz ◴[] No.45165858[source]
I‘ve been with a couple of startups that shipped and not a single one was cutting corners in this area anymore. Last time I saw this was probably around 2005-2008.
replies(1): >>45168885 #
2. bcrosby95 ◴[] No.45168885[source]
Cutting corners here is one of the worst decisions you can make. Especially in an environment where you don't know your end product and you're likely to rework your code over and over and over again.

Piling shit on top of shit only pays off on very short time scales - like a month or two. Because once you revisit that shit code all your time savings are out the window. If you have to revisit it more than once you probably slowed yourself down already.

replies(1): >>45169215 #
3. rmoriz ◴[] No.45169215[source]
And you can add an AI code agent (Copilot, Opencode, Claude) to the workflow just to deal with failing tests, automatically create PRs to fix the issues. It may boost the productivity a lot doing housekeeping while coding manually.