It looks like a rigid design philosophy that must completely rebuild for any change. If the speed of production becomes fast enough, and the cost low enough, iterating the entire program for every change would become feasible and cost effective.
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
1027 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
81162 readers
4952 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
... as long as the giant corpos paying through the nose for the data centers continue to vastly underprice their products in order to make us all dependent on them.
Just wait till everyone's using it and the prices will skyrocket.
I frequently feel that urge to rebuild from ground (specifications) up, to remove the "old bad code" from the context window and get back to the "pure" specification as the source of truth. That only works up to a certain level of complexity. When it works it can be a very fast way to "fix" a batch of issues, but when the problem/solution is big enough the new implementation will have new issues that may take longer to identify as compared with just grinding through the existing issues. Devil whose face you know kind of choice.
They shipped a product in 3 months? What the fuck was it? New "under construction" page?
I did see someone write a post about Chat Oriented Programming, to me that appeared successful, but not without cost and extra care. Original Link, Discussion Thread
Successful in that it wrote code faster and its output stuck to conventions better than the author would. But they had to watch it like a hawk and with the discipline of a senior developer putting full attention over a junior, stop and swear at it every time it ignored the rules that they give at the beginning of each session, terminate the session when it starts doing a autocompactification routine that wastes your money and makes Claude forget everything. And you try to dump what it has completed each time. One of the costs seem to be the sanity of the developer, so I really question if it's a sustainable way of doing things from both the model side and from developers. To be actually successful you need to know what you're doing otherwise it's easy to fall in a trap like the CTO, trusting the AI's assertions that everything is hunky-dory.
That perfectly describes what my day-to-day has become at work (not by choice).
The only way to get anywhere close to production-ready code is to do like you just described, and the process is incredibly tedious and frustrating. It also isn't really any faster than just writing the code myself (unless I'm satisfied with committing slop) and in the end, I still don't understand the code I've 'written' as well as if I'd done it without AI. When you write code yourself there's a natural self-reinforcement mechanism, the same way that taking notes in class improves your understanding/retention of the information better than when just passively listening. You don't get that when vibe coding (no matter how knowledgeable you are and how diligent you are about babysitting it), and the overall health of the app suffers a lot.
The AI tools are also worse than useless when it comes to debugging, so good fucking luck getting it to fix the bugs it inevitably introduces...
For debugging there is the Google antigravity method: there can't be bugs if it wipes the whole drive containing your project (taps head)
I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it.
Wouldn't the point be to use AI to make the change, if you're trying to do it 100% with AI? Who is really saying 100% AI adoption is a good idea though? All I hear about from everyone is how it's not a good idea, just like this post.
Wasn't this obvious? He didn't need to go "all-in on ai" cause there is hundreds of thousands of people who tried the same thing already and everyone of them could tell him that's not what ai can do.
Hundreds of thousands of internet strangers is different from lived experience.
I take the author's opinion more seriously because they went out and tried it for themselves.
load more comments
(1 replies)