←back to thread

All vibe coding tools are selling a get rich quick scheme

(varunraghu.com)
129 points Varun08 | 4 comments | 09 Sep 25 22:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.701s | source
Show context
cramsession ◴[09 Sep 25 22:47 UTC] No.45190469[source]▶
The trick is that you have to be a good coder to get the most out of "vibe" coding. It works great for me, but I deploy all of the knowledge I've acquired over the decades as a professional developer. You need to know how to architect systems, what data structures and algorithms to ask for, how to design a product, many facets of graphic and user interface design, how to parcel out work, how to parallelize tasks. Even which ideas are worth pursuing is an intuition you build up over years. "Vibe" coding really is magic and I'm highly scaled, but I don't see how it could possibly work for all but the most senior developers. In some sense, it's like writing LISP macros on steroids.
replies(10): >>45190657 #>>45190885 #>>45191035 #>>45191109 #>>45191139 #>>45191169 #>>45191530 #>>45191570 #>>45192419 #>>45196027 #
cortesoft ◴[09 Sep 25 23:23 UTC] No.45190885[source]▶
I 100% agree that this is how the experience is right now.

I don't necessarily think it will stay this way, though. The tools are so new, we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully.

replies(4): >>45190980 #>>45190984 #>>45191033 #>>45192734 #
dmitrygr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:31 UTC] No.45190984[source]▶
> we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully

Care to put some money behind this fantastical claim, in a bet?

replies(1): >>45191002 #
1. cortesoft ◴[09 Sep 25 23:34 UTC] No.45191002[source]▶
Sure, if you granted me odds commiserate with my statement that "you can't be so sure", meaning I would get like 99-1 odds.

I wasn't saying it will certainly reach the point where non-coders can code, I am saying we can't be certain it won't just because it can't yet

replies(1): >>45191153 #
2. dmitrygr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:49 UTC] No.45191153[source]▶
1:1 odds, but i'll give you a huge (tech-wise) time horizon of, say, 3 years?
replies(2): >>45192816 #>>45199371 #
3. anon22981 ◴[10 Sep 25 03:23 UTC] No.45192816[source]▶
Since you are only willing to go for 1:1 odds with a 3 year timeframe, I assume you are in agreement that it might happen? Otherwise I’m sure you would give him better odds with a larger timeframe :)
4. cortesoft ◴[10 Sep 25 15:43 UTC] No.45199371[source]▶
Ha, no I am thinking more like 10-20 years, or maybe even longer. But I know from experience that 10-20 years goes by faster than you think.