Hacker News Reader

Comment by daveguy | Hacker News Reader

nullsanity got downvoted into oblivion, but they are correct. This is one of the many reasons why vibe coding produces worse software. The code that is generated and the best practice recommendations are completely separate. They both come from a distribution of "most common", and best practice is rarely common. Especially when a practice is first established, or in a specific niche.

View on HN

Unless you are referencing some existing non vibe coded app, complaints the project being vibe coded may be just too generic at this point.

A hand coded electron project would have a discussion about electron vs native. Relevant in general but off topic in the context of this particular app.

Maybe the real question is: who cares?

What’s the downside risk of having "worse software" when you’re just ideating and putting things out there to see how people like it.

Your idea can be great, but if the implementing is bad, people still may not like it, and you’ll never know that’s the cause.

And manager types in software still haven't figured out that prototypes should not be the final product. In engineering it's common knowledge and only rarely do you take a proof of concept directly to production.

Worst case:

- release vibe coded tool

- on HN, someone says, d'oh, you should be using Y, not X

- give that comment to your LLM

- LLM: "The commenter on Hacker News is absolutely right, my mistake. I can easily replace X with Y if you want"

- release a new, better version of vibe coded tool

Iteration, in one afternoon.

Hahaha. It'll say what you bring up is absolutely right egardless of whether it's a better option. These LLMs use a training technique (RLHF) that placates the user and keeps them burning tokens. It's optimizing for human approval, not correctness.

Yes and no: specific products/tools/frameworks get replaced regularly but the underlying concepts continue to be correct

Isn’t that why you use a plan mode? Or better, use a plan mode, revise and critique the plan, and then let it proceed to build?

idk about that. The big labs and their data providers are spending millions of dollars building up expert datasets. I was offered $120/hr to critique outputs and provide my own designs. Thats clean and high quality data, not the average internet word distribution

Kind of like "history is written by the victors"

On the flipside, it also leads to better software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com