absolutely false.

> The general public does not care about anything other than the capabilities and limitations of your product.

also false.

People may not know that the reason they like your product is because the code is so good, but everyone likes software that is mostly free from bugs, performs extremely well, helps them do their work quickly, and is obviously created by people the care deeply about the quality of the product they produce (you know, the kind that acutally read bug reports, and fix problems quickly).

The longer your product exists the more important the quality of the code will be. This obsession so many have with "get it out the door in 5 seconds" is only going to continue the parade of garbage software that is slow as a dog, and uses gigabytes of memory to perform simple tasks.

You don't have to pick on camp over the other. In my opinion, if you want to make a good product for a user, you should also treat the code you produce for them as your craft. There is no substitute for high quality work.

There are some types of software (e.g. websites especially), where a bit of jank and is generally acceptable. Sessions are relatively short, and your users can reload the webpage if things stop working. The technical rigor of these codebases tends to be poor, but it's generally fine.

Then there's software which is very sensitive to issues (e.g. a multi-player game server, a driver, or anything that's highly concurrent). The technical rigor here needs to be very high, because a single mistake can be devastating. This type of software attracts people who want to take pride in their code, because the quality really does matter.

I think these people are feeling threatened by LLMs. Not so much because an LLM is going to outperform them, but because an LLM will (currently) make poor technical design decisions that will eventually add up to the ruin of high-rigor software.

People who care about code quality are not artists who want to paint on the company's dime. They are people who care about shipping a product deeply enough to make sure that doing so is a pleasant experience both for themselves and their colleagues, and also have the maturity to do a little bit more thinking today, so that next week they can make better decisions without thinking, so that they don't get called at 4 AM the night after launch for some emergency debugging of an issue that that really should have been impossible if it was properly designed.

> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

Usually they don't get to see the internals of the product, but they can make inferences based on its externals. You've heard plenty of products called a "vibe-coded piece of crap" this year, even if they're not open source.

But also, this is just not true. Code quality is a factor in lots of purchasing decisions.

When buying open source products, having your own team check out the repo is incredibly common. If there are glaring signs in the first 5 minutes that it was hacked together, your chances of getting the sale have gone way down. In the largest deals, inspecting the source code

It was for an investment decision rather than for a purchase, but I've been personally hired to do some "emergency API design" so a company can show that it both has the thing being designed, and that their design is good.

There are products that are made better when the code itself is better. I would argue that the vast majority of products are expected to be reliable, so it would make sense that reliable code makes for better product. That's not being a code craftsman, it's being a good product designer and depending on your industry, sometimes even being a good businessman. Or, again, depending on your industry, not being callous about destroying people's lives in the various ways that bad code can.

And at the same time I hope that you will some day be forced to maintain a project written by someone else with that mindset. Cruel, yes. But unfortunately schadenfreude is a real thing - I must be honest too.

I have gotten to old for ship now, ask questions later projects.

I've worked on a project that went over the complexity cliff before LLM coding even existed. It can get pretty hairy when you already have well-established customers with long-term use-cases that absolutely cannot be broken, but their use-cases are supported by a Gordian Knot of tech debt that practically cannot be improved without breaking something. It's not about a single bug that an LLM (or human) might introduce. It's about a complete breakdown in velocity and/or reliability, but the product is very mature and still makes money; so abandoning it and starting over is not considered realistic. Eager uptake of tech debt helped fuel the product's rise to popularity, but ultimately turned it into a dead end. It's a tough balancing act. I think a lot of LLM-generated platforms will fall eventually into this trap, but it will take many years.

To me, the entire point of crafting good code is building a product with care in the detail. They're inseparable.

I don't think I've ever in my life met someone who cared a lot about code and technology who didn't also care immensely about detail, and design, and craft in what they were building. The two are different expressions of the same quality in a person, from what I've seen.

Vibe coding will fill in more "new feature" checkboxes, faster, but the level of quality averages out, to something often mediocre, or worse (like all my OSS projects in which I experiment; because such projects are the training data). It skips liberally on maintainability, accessibility, security and privacy considerations.

Code is a liability, I want to have less of it at a higher abstraction level (for which natural language isn't a good fit due to inherent ambiguity). For products, simplicity and user utility is how I approach the problem when given wiggle room.

We are on HN, so there's bound to be many startup people that only need to bang out features to lure in users and then pass on that pile further onto someone else, when they cash out.

What I have seen however, are mid-managers+ that haven't coded in a decade or so, and now with LLMs they feel that they deliver equal quality results, whereas they have been so long out of the game and haven't picked up the modern skills on how to maintain and build applications.

Craft often inspires a quasi-religious adherence to fight the ever-present temptation to just cut this one corner here real quick, because is anything really going to go wrong? The problems that come from ignoring craft are often very far-removed from the decisions that cause them, and because of this craft instills a sense of always doing the right thing all the time.

This can definitely go too far, but I think it's a complete misunderstanding to think that craft exists for reasons other than ensuring you produce high-quality products for users. Adherents to craft will often end up caring about the code as end-goal, but that's because this ends up producing better products, in aggregate.

For personal projects, I've been in both camps:

For scripts and one-offs, always #1. Same for prototypes where I'm usually focused on understanding the domain and the shape of the product. I happily trade code quality for time when it's simple, throwaway, or not important.

But for developing a product to release, you want to be able to jump back in even if it's years later.

That said, I'm struggling with this with my newest product. Wavering between the two camps. Enforcing quality takes time that can be spent on more features...

The developers don't care that either. If developers cared the whole npm ecosystem wouldn't exist.

Code quality is absolutely important. It’s just not a quality that’s easily visible to a layman. I can definitely feel the difference as a user when a program has been crafted with care.

As stated by others, this is very false. Most if not all software I use is selected by its disk/memory footprint and performance. Having a small disk/memory footprint and having good performance at the same time is a good indicator of a good code quality.

Moreover, after using computers for more than three decades, you get a feeling about the performance of a particular software suite. So an inefficient piece of code makes itself known in a loud way if you look the right way.

One of my favorite applications, Obsidian, is generally performs well, but when you hit it just the right way (e.g. add a couple of PDFs and enable previewing), you can feel how sluggish it becomes.

Having a suite of well written applications which have high performance/footprint ratio also allows me to do more with less resources and in less time. So, good code quality matters. It also almost guarantees the software suite will be maintained in a longer time.

Incidentally, I'm also in camp #2, and write my code with the same attention to detail. I have also written code which squeezed all performance from systems, approaching theoretical IPC limits of the processor the code is running on.

It mystifies me when people don't intuit this.

For any suitably sized project, there are parts where elegance and friction removal are far more important than others. By an order or two of magnitude.

I have shipped beautifully-honed, highly craft code. Right alongside jank that was debugged in the "Well it seems to work now" and "Don't touch anything behind this in-project PI" category.

There are very good reasons and situations for both approaches, even in one project.

1. you care about shipping working, tested code that solves a specific business/user problem

2. you care about closing tickets that were assigned to you

The question where experience comes in is when quality is and isnt worth the time. I can create all sorts of cool software I couldn't before because now I can quickly pump out "good enough" android apps or react front ends! (Not trying to denigrate front end devs, it's just a skill I dont have)

This is very much a "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end" sort of thing. (Same with the other variant I've heard, which is something like "no company has gone out of business because of tech debt".)

Code is as much a tool for developing and expressing conceptual models as it is for making computers do things. So not only does code quality have proximate impacts on engineering productivity and reliability, but, done well, it also improves the holistic design of the system you're building. You get better tools, faster, by putting some thought and care into your codebase and, especially, your core abstractions. Teams with good code move faster even in the short term and produce better tools and products.

Of course, it's not just a matter of code; you also need a culture that gives engineers the agency to make real, long-term decisions about what you're building (not just how) which, unfortunately, is rare to find in the modern tech industry :/ The dominant "high-output management" paradigm where code is seen as a virtually fungible "output" to be "delivered" loses the higher-order advantages of good code and good conceptual design, and leaves us with something much closer to the trade-off you describe. But there are other ways of approaching technical work that don't make this trade-off at all!

Modern harnesses are systems built with LLMs as one of many building blocks (incl. regex, test suites, linters). If it can be measured and verified, there's a good chance LLMs will optimize it

This is not a new concept. Humans stopped writing "artful" assembly many years ago, because Lattner and others made it much more efficient to rely on LLVM than hand-optimizing assembly

It's also been demonstrated in other domains within Google (4x4 matmul, silicon photonics, protein folding)

Interface heavy apps are not purely about objective function, they are about feel, comfort, usability - those apps will benefit heavily from humans. But subcomponents of these apps (eg. an algorithm to route packets efficiently) can often be better solved (somewhat objectively) by LLM-based solvers or other forms of RL.

However, writing assembly for the sake of art sounds rather interesting in an 2026. Many of my favorite musicians and DJs are driving a resurgence in vinyl to help balance the computed future - and I think that's a great thing

Code is usually a liability. A means to an end. But is your code going to run for a minute, a month, a year, or longer? How often will it change? How likely are you going to have to add unforeseen features? Etc. Etc. Etc.

You ever notice how everyone who drives slower than you is a moron and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac? Your two camps have a similar bias.

“When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”

If you aren't even sure if your idea is even gonna work, whether you have PMF, or the company will be around next year.. then yeah.. speed over quality all day long.

On the other hand, I've never done the startup thing myself, and tend to work on software project with 10-20 year lifecycles. When code velocity maximalism leads to outages, excess compute cost and reputational issues.. good code matters again.

Re: "No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is." Sonos very much could go out of business for agreeing with this line. I can tell you lots of people stopped buying their products because of how bad their code quality became with the big app change debacle. Lost over a decade of built up good will.

Apple is going through this lately with the last couple major OS releases across platforms and whatever is going on with their AI. This despite having incredible hardware.

>No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

Disagree. Users tend to be very sensitive to quality, in software more than anything else. (Of course there isn't always perfect transmission from "user" to "purchaser" but most likely for an upstart product, your user will be your customer. You're not Oracle or Microsoft yet.)

In fact, quality matters now especially more than before because the barrier to entry has reduced. If you have a great idea, but executed it poorly, it attracts second movers like a magnet. Quality is intimidating. Quality is moat.

Good software engineers (your camp 2) can anticipate the ways in which bad code results in a poor quality product, or one that is difficult to debug and evolve. That is the crux of good code. Good code is not craftsmanship in the same sense as making a beautiful painting or making colorful notes.

Other times, I have something specific I want to accomplish, but I dread the amount of time it will take to make it happen.

Now, it is never that I don't know HOW to make it happen, it is that I know how, and I know how many steps it is and how many components there are to build to even get the simplest version running and I just dread it. I want the thing, but I don't want to spend the time to make the thing.

I have had so much fun recently making so many things that I have never gotten around to over the years, because I just couldn't justify the time.

I also have the time to tell the AI to add all the nice to haves, and handle all the edge cases that weren't worth the time before, etc.

I am having a blast. I still stop to write the fun bits when I want to, though. It is great because I only have to code the bits I want, that are fun.

The future of software looks a lot more like factory production lines with a small group of architect-tier engineers working on a design with product management and then feeding it into the factory for prototyping and production.

If you're not an experienced late senior or principal engineer at your career stage by now there is basically no future for you in this industry. Lower end roles will continue to be reduced. People who can build and maintain the factory and understand its outputs are going to be the remaining high-value software talent.

> 1. You treat your code as a means to an end to make a product for a user.

> 2. You treat the code itself as your craft, with the product being a vector for your craft.

Among the vocal devs, maybe. Most devs choose a trade-off between #1 and #2, leaning heavily towards #2.

And the reason is, very few people actually want to the output of their labour to be poor, no matter how superficially good it looks.

I find, like the poster below me said, the people presenting the false dichotomoty you present are desperate to legitimise their production of lovecraftian code horrors.

It's a trick, a verbal one usually, that people who espouse woo and who know that they are BSing, use to sort of "borrow" legitimacy from a field that is already respectable. Like... ghost-believers referring to themselves as occult scientists. They throw in the word "scientist" in there to borrow the legitimacy and respectability of actual scientists[1].

Throwing in "user delight" or "useful to the user" into their arguments for vibe-coding is their way of borrowing the respectability of actual developers, who had always been developing for an actual user, and who cared about their user enough to target that specific use-case.

The folks in #1 are simply borrowing what they can from the respectable practitioners to paper over the fact that all they care about is themselves, not actual users.

The clear majority of them are hoping to hit a jackpot; the borrowed terms, phrases and words is simply a poor attempt to cover up their naked greed.

---------------------------

[1] There's probably a joke in there somewhere about "software engineers" :-)

Because to determine good code, you need to see it and I'd presume most open source code is free.

Code quality makes the difference between a janky system that works most of the time and a rock solid system that is an enjoyment to use.

QA can only apply duct tape. If your state management isn’t clean, the UX will suck. If your functions aren’t clean, you will keep chasing bugs.

Luckily, AI is capable of writing good code. Today, that still requires some amount of hand holding, but it’s getting better.

So I’m confused. I really am, help me understand your world view.

I've always found my self at the clean code end of the spectrum (which also means simple and flexible to me) because it makes it easier to be flexible for customer needs. So I like good code but it's a means to an end.

But many ppl will refuse a purchasing because the product breaks randomly

This sounds more like a product owner not a developer

Well, you certainly should. Those people made AI based coding a possibility in the first place.

Treating code as a means to an end doesn't guarantee success for your product anymore than treating code as a craft.

So instead of criticizing the gentleman for its dichotomy I feel like adding more states to it to complete the picture. And I mean it, this is not making fun of someone it means I tamed myself in stopping to do premature optimization knowing Gigahertz won’t care about me saving a cycle and might even hinder the masterfully crafted compilers from optimizing even more.

3. Partly awesome, partly not so much but don’t need to be awesome.

4. Myself has to understand this masterpiece of human thinking in six months and more from here and after a 20 hour stint I myself marvel at the result so better comment before committing the code into oblivion.

5. Embarrassing, but people are delighted.

6. This made headlines years ago, but some code doesn’t age well.

7. OMG, OOP might looks right, but a new paradigm rushes me into refactoring frenzy and makes the code look better without breaking any features!

8. I used tool to check for bottlenecks and it runs well, but looks crap. So what do I do?

9. Loop unrolling is still a thing or not? Do compilers have headaches just like I do? Do they really care or simply follow orders or adjust to the target platform and settings?

Perhaps this is an antiquated concept which has fallen out of favor in silicon valley, but code doesn't just run in an imaginary world where there are no consequences and everything is fun all the time. You are responsible for the product you sell. If you sell a photo app that has a security bug, you are responsible for your customers nude photos being leaked. If you vibe-code a forum and store passwords in plaintext, you are responsible for the inevitable breech and harm.

The "general public" might not care, but that is only because the market is governed by imperfect information. Ultimately the public are the ones that get hurt by defective products.

But I will demand my money back or sue you if your crappy code leaks my personal information, destroys my property, performs worse than advertised, or otherwise harms me in some way.

There was sloppy code before LLMs. It’s what they were trained on. And it’s why they generate slop.

All that code that was rushed out to meet an arbitrary deadline made up by the sales team, written by junior and lazy senior developers, pushed by the, “code doesn’t matter,” folks. Code written by the enterprise architecture astronauts with a class hierarchy deeper than the Mariana Trench. A few years down the line you get bloated, slow, hard to maintain spaghetti piles of dung. Windows rendering text that stutter when you scroll them. Virtual keyboards that take seconds to pop up. Browser tabs that take more available memory than was available to send astronauts to the moon and back.

When humans write it you generally have a few people on a team who are concerned with these things. They try to reign in the slop generating, “always be shipping,” people. You need a mix of both. Because each line of code is a liability as much as it’s a new feature.

People who think developers fall into one of two camps.

And people worth listening to.

But I am not the fan of code it writes most of the times. I want my code to read and behave certain way. I can not submit that code, even if it works, if I can't explain or just don't like it. I then iterate over that code myself or ask AI until it has the shape I agree with.

For my personal side projects I don't care as much what code looks like as long as it works correctly and easily modifiable. But for work, it still remains my responsibility no matter which tool was used.

You (are required to) treat your code as having to fulfill both functional requirements and declared non-functional requirements, including measures of maintainability, reliability, performance, and security and (regulatory/legal) compliance.

I am in both camps. Always have been.

Code janitors about to be in high demand. We’ve always been pretty popular with leadership and it’s gonna get even more important.

Treat code design and architecture as the thing that lets your slop canons (90% of engineers even pre-ai) move fast without breaking things

My output is org velocity.

There are two reasons for this. One is that the people who make purchasing decisions are often not the people who suffer from your bad code. If the user is not the customer, then your software can be shitty to the point of being a constant headache, because the user is powerless to replace it.

The other reason is that there's no such thing as "free market" anymore. We've been sold the idea that "if someone does it better, then they'll win", but that's a fragile idea that needs constant protection from bad actors. The last time that protection was enacted was when the DOJ went against Microsoft.

> Sure, if you vibe code a massive bug into your product then that'll manifest as an outcome that impacts the user negatively.

Any semblance of accountability for that has been diluted so much that it's not worth mentioning. A bug someone wrote into some cloud service can end up causing huge real-world damage in people's lives, but those people are so far removed from the suits that made the important decisions that they're powerless to change anything and won't ever see that damage redressed in any way.

So yeah, I'm in camp #2 and I'm bitter about AI, because it's just accelerating and exacerbating the enshittification.

Someone on the HN wrote recently that everyone who's foaming at the mouth about how AI helps us ship faster is forgetting that velocity is a vector -- it's not just about how fast you're going, but also in what direction.

I'd go further and say that I'm not even convinced we're moving that much faster. We're just cranking out the code faster, but if we actually had to review that code properly and make all the necessary fixes, I'm pretty sure we would end up with a net loss of velocity.

If you have buggy software, people don’t use it if there are alternatives. They don’t care about the code but hard to maintain, buggy code will eventually translate to users trying other products.

I'm weird, I'm part of camp 2, but I think AI can be used to really craft some interesting things. While I appreciate camp 1, camp 2 is what produces better codebases that are easier to maintain, myself and others have realized, that the best practices for humans are also the best practice for AI models to fit your code.

- revenue/man-hour, features shipped/man-hour, etc.

- ms response time, GB/s throughput, number of bugs actually shipped to customers, etc.

People in the second camp use AI, but it's a lot more limited and targeted. And yes, you can always cut corners and ship software faster, but it's not going to be higher quality by any objective metric.

Code quality isn't just a fetish. It has real implications for security and the final product.

I've also found that unmaintainable codebases aren't just hard to maintain for humans. LLMs seem to struggle with them just as much

And then they can ship those products much faster than before, because human hours aren't being eaten up writing out all of these abstractions and tests.

The better tooling will let the AI iterate faster and catch errors earlier in the loop.

Right?

But also I know when to put up and make the damn thing work.

I think more often they simply picked the wrong programming language as a target. In my experience, AI is especially bad at writing Typescript/Javascript, which happens to overlap with the most widely used language. I have negative things to say about AI too when developing in that ecosystem. If I only ever used AI in that ecosystem I'd probably tell you it is useless with the rest of them.

But my daily work sees me working in more than one language and when I am in some other language environments I have no reservations about AI whatsoever. AI vs good code is no longer even at odds with each other. In those certain languages, the models write good, stable, production-ready code pretty much all the time. It is really quite amazing.

That's however what makes for stable systems, deep knowledgable engineers, and structurally building the basis for the future.

If all you care about is getting money for your product slop, it's not different than late night marketed crap, or fast fashion...

1. The people who don't understand (nor care) about the risks and complexity of what they're delivering; and

2. The people that do.

Widespread AI usage is going to be a security nightmare of prompt injection and leaking credentials and PII.

> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

This just isn't true. There's a whole process in purchasing software, buying a company or signing a large contract called "due diligence". Due diligence means to varying degree checking how secure the product is, the company's processes, any security risks, responsiveness to bugfixes, CVEs and so on.

AI is going to absolutely fail any kind of due diligence.

There's a little thing called the halting problem, which in this context basically means there's no way to guarantee that the AI will be restricted from doing anything you don't want it to do. An amusing example was an Air Canada chatbot that hallucinated a refund policy that a court said it had to honor [1].

How confident are we going to be that AIs won't leak customer information, steal money from customers and so on? I'm not confident at all.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-...

If I do a bad job, I get a bunch of bug reports, I get called out for writing bugs, etc. We've been pushed to use AI, and it's hurt more than it's helped with our code base.

I routinely close tabs when I sense that low-quality code is wasting time and resources, including e-commerce sites. Amazon randomly cancelled my account so I will never shop from them. I try to only buy computers and electronics with confirmed good drivers. Etc.

Because the ones that sell crappy code don’t sell to people that can tell the difference.

You think I’d pay for Jira or Confluence if it wasn’t foisted upon me by a manager that has got it in with the Atlassian sales rep?

I don’t even need to see Atlassian’s source code to know it’s sh*t.

I don’t care what kind of steel you used to design my car, but I care a great deal that it was designed well, is safe, and doesn’t break down all the time.

Craft isn’t a fussy thing.

Shit bloated code is one of the reasons Epic Launcher is extremely behind in market share when compared to Steam.

Sure, they ship their product fast. They can iterate faster than Valve. They also add technical debt with each iteration.

Also: we are almost all using a Chrome derived browser instead of Firefox, old IE, old Opera, because of performance and quality. They just won the internet because of the quality of their code. Besides that, all browsers let you browse the internet.

When people can choose, they choose quality most of the time.

As such AI is a net negative as it would be in writing a novel or making any other kind of art.

Just because one falls in the "Cha bu duo" camp and (potentially) looks down on the "Kaizen" types doesn't mean the two products are equivalent.

That also doesn't mean that slop / cha bu duo / made in china products are bad, mind you. They have their place, and occasionally a Kaizen approach would be detrimental to getting "something" done quick and dirty that will likely work ok anyway. The danger is in believing that just because they're "ok" this means they are equivalent (or at least largely overlap) with the more refined products, which is demonstrably false and can be a dangerous attitude to have.

John Carmack has talked about it in a podcast a few years ago, and he's the closest popular programmer that I can think of who was simply obsessed with milking every tiny ounce of GPU performance, yet none of his effort would matter if Doom and Quake weren't fun games.

I think that the real two camps here are those who haven't carefully - and I mean really carefully - reviewed the code the agents write and haven't put their process under some real stress test vs those who have. Obviously, people who don't look for the time bombs naturally think everything is fine. That's how time bombs work.

I can make this more concrete. The program wants to depend on some invariant, say that a particular list is always sorted, and the code maintains it by always inserting elements in the right place in the list. Other code that needs to search for an element depends on that invariant. Then it turns out that under some conditions - due to concurrency, say - an element is inserted in the wrong place and the list isn't sorted, so one of the places that tries to find an element in the list fails to find it. At that point, it's a coin toss of whether the agent will fix the insertion or the search. If it fixes the search, the bug is still there for all the other consumers of the list, but the testing didn't catch that. Then what happens is that, with further changes, depending on their scope, you find that some new code depends on the intended invariant and some doesn't. After several such splits and several failed invariants, the program ends up in a place that nothing can be done to fix a bug. If the project is "done" before that happens - you're in luck; if not, you're in deep, deep trouble. But right up until that point, unless you very carefully review the code (because the agents are really good at making code seem reasonable under cursory scrutiny), you think everything is fine. Unless you go looking for cracks, every building seems stable until some catastrophic failure, and AI-generated code is full of cracks that are just waiting for the right weight distribution to break open and collapse.

So it sounds to me that the people you think are in the first camp not only just care how the building is built as long as it doesn't collapse, but also believe that if it hasn't collapsed yet it must be stable. The first part is, indeed, a matter of perspective, but the second part is just wrong (not just in principle but also when you actually see the AI's full-of-cracks code).

When I make a purchasing decision I expect the payment to go trough quickly and correctly and for whatever I purchase to arrive to me in reasonable time. All of this rests on the reputation of software being solid. If a user hears a whiff of purchase not being executed correctly, money or goods going somewhere else, this is the death sentence for your company.

Industry is now pushing for agentic web where agents can do this on your behalf. But if we have slop foundations and then add unstable models that can hallucinate and make mistakes on top of it, then it's just a recipe for catastrophe. I think relegating 2) into category of only mission critical software escapes the reality of how much reliability goes into everyday services people use.

It is strange, but not really upsetting to me, that I am not particularly anal about the code Claude is generating for me anymore but that could also be a function of how low stakes the projects are or the fact nothing has exploded yet.

That influenced some unfortunate interactions with people and meant that no one could be held to their agreements since you never knew if they received the agreements.

So, well, code quality kind of matters. But I suppose you're still right in a sense - currently people buy and use complete crap.

Why did Whatsapp grow so big while thousands of previous chat apps didn't code quality (scalability)

> The people who typically have the most negative things to say about AI fall into camp #2 where AI is automating a large part of what they considered their art while enabling people in group #1 to iterate on their product faster.

That’s fine for people argue those things.

My criticisms of AI are mainly

1. The principle of the GenAI approach

2. Political

The first point is about how stupid the GenAI approach is (I could link to the arguments). But I have left open the door for pure results, i.e. demonstrating that it (despite my belief) works in practice. So this is not about craftmanship.

I’ve previously commented that I would respect a more principled approach even though it takes my craft.[1]

> Personally, I fall into the first camp.

Of course you do. Because...

> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

In these dichotomies the author typically puts himself forward as the pragmatist and the other side as the ones who care about things that are just irrelevant to the purchasing decision or whatever.

But the AI haters have made real arguments against AI, against the people behind AI, and so on. It’s not a matter of vibes. So maybe respond to those arguments? We don’t need another armchair lesson in psychological inclinations.

Be a pragmatist for all I care. But beware of the bloodless pragmatist who only sees what is, essentially, instant product gratification and not what comes after, or from the sides, or from below.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47358696

The capabilities and limitations of your product are defined in part by how good the code is. If you write a buggy mess (whether you write it yourself or vibe code it), people aren't going to tolerate that unless your software has no competitors doing better. People very much do care about the results that good code provides, even if they don't care about the code as an end in itself.

The question is how much does the market value this, and how much it should value it.

For one-off scripts and software built for personal use, it doesn't matter. Go nuts. Move fast and break things.

But the quality requirement scales proportionally with how many people use and rely on the software. And not just users, but developers. Subjective properties like maintainability become very important if more than one developer needs to work on the codebase. This is true even for LLMs, which can often make a larger mess if the existing code is not in good shape.

To be clear, I don't think LLMs inevitably produce poor quality software. They can certainly be steered in a good direction. But that also requires an expert at the wheel to provide good guidance, which IME often takes as much, if not more, work than doing it by hand.

So all this talk about these new tools replacing the craft of programming is overblown. What they're doing, and will continue to do unless some fundamental breakthrough is reached, is make the creation of poor quality software very accessible. This is not the fault of the tools, but of the humans who use them. And this should concern everyone.

> The general public does not care about anything other than the capabilities and limitations of your product.

It's absolutely asinine to say the general public doesn't care about the quality and experience of using software. People care enough that Microsoft's Windows director sent out a very tail-between-legs apology letter due to the backlash.

It's as it always has been, balancing quality and features is... well, a balance and matters.

Did that guy make it because Rust, and because he's passionate about that sort of thing? Probably.

But it's fucking fast. So did he sell out to OpenAI? Of course he did.

And thusly, both camps.

I got my company to switch from GitHub to GitLab after repeated outages. I've always moved companies to away from using GCP or Azure because of their reliability problems.

This is a really funny comment.

Everybody else is dealing with AIgen is suffering the AI spitting out the end product. Like if we asked AI to generate the compiled binary instead of the source.

Artists can't get AIgen to make human-reviewed changes to a .psd file or an .svg, it poops out a fully formed .png. It usurps the entire process instead of collaborating with the artist. Same for musicians.

But since our work is done in text and there's a massive publicly accessible corpus of that text, it can collaborate with us on the design in a way that others don't get.

In software the "power of plain text" has given us a unique advantage over kinds of creative work. Which is good, because AIgen tends to be clumsy and needs guidance. Why give up that advantage?

It isn’t that though, the “end” here is making money not building products for users. Typically people who are making products for users cares about the craft.

If the means-to-end people could type words into a box and get money out the other side, they would prefer to deal with that than products or users.

Thats why ai slop is so prevalent — the people putting it out there don’t care about the quality of their output or how it’s used by people, as long as it juices their favorite metrics - views, likes, subscribes, ad revenue whatever. Products and users are not in scope.

Also it’s more than an art or a craft. It’s identity. Many people hold their coding skill as an identity they honed it over many years and it put them in the ranking they are in today. This kind of destruction of identity by AI is what causes people to deny reality.

This stuff also covers your job, even if you don’t hold coding as an identity it is still responsible for many people’s livelihoods. Like ai is convenient right now but what happens when it gets even more convenient? What happens to your job and your life especially if software was all you did for over a decade?

I’m in camp 2 and I can’t lie to myself about what’s happening. I’ve embraced ai and I now vibe code daily even though I was originally an artistic functional programmer. This ability comes at high cost. I’m able to do it because I hold zero identity. I dont identity with anything and I don’t put too much pride into anything I do or at least if I put pride into something I’m always conscious of severing the entire thing at a moments notice.

Lying to oneself is a powerful ability but it becomes a liability when society goes through an intense paradigm shift. This is what is happening now.

RollerCoaster Tycoon.

> The general public does not care about anything other than the capabilities and limitations of your product. Sure, if you vibe code a massive bug into your product then that'll manifest as an outcome that impacts the user negatively.

People care how fast you're able to ship updates, new features, and bugfixes. If you're working with a pile of vibe-coded spaghetti slop it's going to take longer to deliver these.

Oh wait, they're the biggest car builder in the world.

I don't believe there is a dichotomy, or even a spectrum of developers, but a complex landscape. Of course, that is also an bald assertion, but on a weaker claim, and no less valid than the original assertion.

That said, independent of assertions about developer classification, in my experience there is a clear connection between the quality of the software and the quality of the product, and I've often see evidence of poor quality software compromising the product and user experience. Poor quality leaks out. Remember BSOD? Maybe not.

I've become hesitant to unleash coding agents simply because the code base ends up looking like the victim of drive-by coding, littered with curious lambda functions, poor encapsulation, etc. The only thing I use coding agents for is exploratory and throwaway code, like one off scripts. I love coding agents for all the ancillary work, I protect the critical path like mamma bear her cubs.

Coding agents make all the second order work easier so I have more bandwidth to focus on the critical parts. Again, software is a landscape, but at least for my work I can't abdicate parts to a coding agent and "works" is an inadequate standard. I need bullet-proof and unfailingly correct.

Token generation definitely produces a certain stream-of-consciousness, Kerouac-as-programmer style. As long as I don't ever have to maintain or modify the code myself, am not concerned about cost control (especially in cloud environments where I am billed by compute cycles), I am fine with quick and dirty and done. I sigh when I see what should be a six line change in my head balloon to 300 lines of generated code, revert, and write the six lines myself. Would take longer to write the prompt to get the coding agent to fix it than fix it myself. It would grind away for several minutes and burn up an astonishing number of tokens for simple fixes.

Anything linguistic the coding agents do well. Want to rename a variable in 300 different source files? I mean, it is overkill to be running a 200B parameter model to avoid writing the sed script I might write otherwise, but who am I to turn my nose up at my work being subsidized by investors? I don't think that economic model will go on forever.

Any higher abstraction is being cargo-culted from language. This is where LLMs are weakest, because they don't understand abstraction or encapsulation, only the artifacts as expressed in language.

Outside of exploratory and throwaway code, I use inline prompting to precisely target and scope changes, and then identify the cleanup and refactoring required to bring the code to acceptable quality. Although I do a lot of cleanup by hand as well. Rather than tell the coding agent that a lambda function wrapping a one liner that is used in one place in the code is dumb, I'll just remove the lambda myself. The coding agent can't adopt and generalize lessons from code review comments the way a human software engineer can -- I am forced to burn tokens every single time to get it to dial back its insane love affair with lambda functions. Again, not a big deal while costs remain subsidized.

Operations and maintenance overhead in the type of software I've written through my career dominates over programming cost. Telecom, aerospace, e-commerce, etc. Systems are long lived. Outages are expensive. Regulatory compliance is a large factor. I've worked in shops with 70% cost overhead in operations. A $50K a month cloud compute bill can be reduced to $15K. There's usually some low hanging fruit and poor quality software doesn't account for all of this, but it is a significant fraction. Like a poorly written termination condition in a container that essentially was a busy wait burning thousands of dollars a month doing nothing (true story).

I am currently writing a trading system, and can't afford to hallucinate a bunch of bad trades. Like the developer landscape, the software landscape is complex and not uniform. So I will concede there are probably many types of software outside of my own experience that can be implemented largely by coding agents. Low consequence. Marginal operational overhead.

I might assert that coding agents forte is autogenerating technical debt, but then I am just being a wag. Less waggishly I would say use of coding agents is subject to engineering judgement, like any tool. Who is going to read that headline or give it a billion dollar valuation?

Yes, some people left to their own devices would take twice as long to ship a product half as buggy only to find out the team that shipped early has taken a massive lead on distribution and now half the product needs to be reworked to catch up.

And some people left to their own devices will also ship a buggy mess way too early to a massive number of people and end up with zero traction or validation out of it, because the bugs weren't letting users properly experience the core experience.

So we've established no one is entirely right, no one is entirely wrong, it's ying/yang and really both sides should ideally exist in each developer in a dynamic balance that changes based on the situation.

-

But there's also a 3rd camp that's the intersection of these: You want to make products that are so good or so advanced *, that embracing the craft aspect of coding is inherent to actually achieving the goal.

That's a frontend where the actual product is well outside typical CRUD app forms + dashboard and you start getting into advanced WebGL work, or complex non-standard UI state that most LLMs start to choke on.

Or needing to do things quicker than the "default" (not even naive) approach allows for UX reasons. I ran into this using Needleman-Wunsch to identify UI elements on return visits to a site without an LLM request adding latency: to me that's the "crafty" part of engineering serving an actual user need. It's a completely different experience getting near instant feedback vs the default today of making another LLM request.

And it's this 3rd camp's feedback on LLM development that people in the 1st camp wrongly dismiss as being part the 2nd craft-maxxed group. For some usecases, slop is actually terminal.

Intentionally contrived example, but if you're building a Linear competitor and you vibecode a CRDT setup that works well enough, but has some core decisions that mean it'll never be fast enough to feel instant and frontend tricks are hiding that, but now users are moving faster than the data and creating conflicts with their own actions and...

You backed yourself into a wall that you don't discover until it's too late. It's only hypervigilance and strong taste/opinion at every layer of building that kind of product that works.

LLMs struggle with that kind of work right now and what's worrying is, the biggest flaw (a low floor in terms of output quality) doesn't seem to be improving. Opus 4.6 will still try to dynamically import random statements mid function. GPT 5.3 tried to satisfy a typechecker by writing a BFS across an untyped object instead of just updating the type definitions.

RL seems to be driving the floor lower actually as the failure modes become more and more unpredictable compared to even GPT 3.5 which would not even be "creative enough" to do some of these things. It feels like we need a bigger breakthrough than we've seen in the last 1-2 years to actually get to the point where it can do that "Type 3" work.

* good/advanced to enable product-led growth, not good/advanced for the sake of it

I'm glad to see that the author of the article is putting an emphasis on simplicity here, especially given the nature of their business. Those that fully embrace the "code doesn't matter" approach are in for a world of hurt.

Long-term, I expect there will be more tooling and model advancements to help us in this regard - and there will certainly be a big economic incentive for that soon. But in the meantime it feels like a dam has been breached and we're just waiting for the real effects to become manifest.

I'm not saying it's wrong, because I haven't actually looked for alternative sources, just that the source isn't great.

That new design-level representation will be code.

It will need to be code, because prompts, while dense, are not nearly deterministic enough.

It will need to be much higher level code, because current code, while deterministic, is not nearly dense enough.

There needs to me more design rep indeed.

The whole business strategy for those companies is to be the one big monopolists that is left standing. That is why they are bleeding money offering token prices well beyond market rate so that they can grow.

Plus they can always lobby the state to ban foreign competition for security reasons.

It takes a lot of work to make cheap, low precision parts work together reliably. The Rolex has it easy, all the parts are precisely built at a great cost and everything fits perfectly. With the cheap alarm clock, you don't know what you will get, so you have to account for every possible defect, because you won't get anything better with your budget and the clock still needs to give you an idea about what time it is.

The parallel in software would be defensive programming, fault tolerance, etc... Ironically, that's common practices in critical software, and it is the most expensive kind of software to develop, the opposite of slop.

> Everything was ruthlessly sacrificed to cut costs, including pilot safety.

If we translate this analogy back to AI driven software development, what would be the equivalent of "pilot safety"?...

If a technology to build airplanes quickly and cheaply existed and was made available to everyone, even to people with no aeronautical engineering experience, flying would be a much scarier ordeal than it already is.

There are good reasons for the strict safety and maintenance standards of the aviation industry. We've seen what can happen if they're not followed.

The fact that the software industry doesn't have similar guardrails is not something to celebrate. Unleashing technology that allows anyone to create software without understanding or even caring about good development practices and conventions is fundamentally a bad idea.

I don't fully agree this optimistic view. Unfortunately, for now, coding agents produce code that, if not further optimized upon "human" request, often generates more complexity than necessary.

It's true that this requires more computational effort for the agents themselves to debug or modify it, but it's also true that the computational cost is negligible compared to the benefit of having features working quickly.

In other words: agents quickly generate hyper-complex and unoptimized code. And the speed of delivery provides more immediate benefits than the costs resulting from bad code.

On the other hand, it's also true that the "careful eye" of an experienced developer can optimize and improve the output in a few simple iterations.

So overall (and unfortunately) the "bad code", if it immediately works, can wins against (or with) a good code.

That's an issue I have with Claude actually. I found it very good at breaking abstractions to get the job done. This is what I'd call slope (more so than the class internals).

What if your AI uses an O(n) algorithm in a function when an O(log n) implementation exists? The output would still be "correct"

You are reinventing the wheel again with yet another form of reinforcement learning. I don't use any form of LLM assistance for coding, but if I have to continually tell it what to do, how to do it, what not to do, what assumptions to make - I would rather stimulate my neurons more by doing that damn thing itself.

The narrative of "Yeah it will do everything, provided you tell it how to do everything!" seems baseless, personally. Even if you emulate the smartest human possible, can you emulate an idiot?

Every abstraction adds some complexity. So maybe the PoC skips all abstractions. Then we need to add a variant to something. Well, a single if/else is simpler than an abstract base class with two concrete implementations. Adding the 3rd as another if clause is simpler than refactoring all of them to an ABC structure. And so on.

“Simple” is relative. Investing in a little complexity now can save your ass later. Weighing this decision takes skill and experience

Like I used 100 gallons of petrol this month and 10 kilos of rabbit feed!

Your brain can still "just click" with agentic coding. But it will have to be at a higher level of abstraction. Perhaps the "click" feels different, and will take some adjusting to.

Left to their own devices, engineers would build the cheapest bridge they could sell that hopefully won't collapse. And no care for the impact on any stakeholder other than the one paying them.

What if we built things that are meant to last? Would the world be better for it?

That can't be right? What about safety factors

Good engineering is building the strongest bridge within budget and time.

… but lately, the rate at which some dev with an LLM can just churn out new bad code has just shot through the roof. I can still be struggling to pick apart the last piece of slop, trying to figure out "okay, if someone with a brain had written this, what would the inputs & outputs be?" and "what is it that production actually needs and relies on, and what causes problems, and how can we get the code from point A to point B without more outages"; but in the meantime, someone has spit out 8 more modules of the same "quality".

So sure, the basic tenants haven't changed, but these days I feel like I'm drowning in outages & bugs.

Competition is essentially dead for that segment given there is always outward growth.

With that being said, AI enables smaller players to implement their visions with enough completeness to be viable. And with a hands off approach to code, the underlying technology mindshare does not matter as much.

... I'll see myself out

So probably the vast majority of people that program....

Software, on the other hand, can be free. Even before LLMs I would argue the best code was found in FOSS projects.

Nobody is going to use sloppy buggy software if a handcrafted well engineered alternative exists, and is free.

In the case of software, the group of people who have principles might be the ones funding FOSS projects, and the software itself would then be enjoyed by all. This is more or less what's already happening today.

Might be fine if your HR software isn't approving holiday requests, but your checkout breaks, there's no human that can pick apart the mess and you lose your entire income for a week and that might be the end of the business.

And no, they’re not flat subscriptions. Use more tokens and your quota is gone faster.

I can promise you outsourcing of coding is still huge.

This said, companies have changed it up a bit, instead of hiring a outsourcing shop, they'll setup their own branch in LCOL countries.

India, Portugal, a few different countries in eastern Europe are all rather large software producing countries for US companies.

Everything fundamental that makes good easier for humans to maintain also makes it easier for LLMs to maintain. Full stop.

Put simply LLMs perform better on better code.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html