It's so strange how "purity" keeps coming up in software developer minds.
I feel like every programming language and every framework had 'purity' advocates who would insist on doing things in a ridiculous way just to maintain some sort of "this is the objectively right way to do it" feeling.
Now I see vibe coding extremists as the same. Looking at the code and having opinions on architecture is seen as just as 'bad' as calling a compiled C module from an interpreted language was seen back in the day... it's not bad, it's actually quite practical, but it violates some strange 'purity'.
One could argue that the 'principle' is that 'you shouldn't have to waste your mental energy on implementation details' but I'd argue that's a bonkers mindset if you want to build software.
"But the Claude team isn’t doing that" - well, you cannot know that for sure. Don't forget that all the leaked code is from a release bundle, an arbitrary build which actually gives you limited or no insight into how it was birthed or came into existence. For all we know, all that leaked code is just shrapnel from a much larger, intelligent build framework, which doesn't give a fig about appearances.
The 10x engineer myth has been a disaster for software engineers. Most Gen AI helps you shift your thinking and avoids the boring grunt work of search/replace, but it doesn't substitute reading and understanding your code. That's where we spent most of our time, anyway.
"Bad software is a decision you make."
Quote of the millennium.
It's so strange how "purity" keeps coming up in software developer minds.
I feel like every programming language and every framework had 'purity' advocates who would insist on doing things in a ridiculous way just to maintain some sort of "this is the objectively right way to do it" feeling.
Now I see vibe coding extremists as the same. Looking at the code and having opinions on architecture is seen as just as 'bad' as calling a compiled C module from an interpreted language was seen back in the day... it's not bad, it's actually quite practical, but it violates some strange 'purity'.
One could argue that the 'principle' is that 'you shouldn't have to waste your mental energy on implementation details' but I'd argue that's a bonkers mindset if you want to build software.
"But the Claude team isn’t doing that" - well, you cannot know that for sure. Don't forget that all the leaked code is from a release bundle, an arbitrary build which actually gives you limited or no insight into how it was birthed or came into existence. For all we know, all that leaked code is just shrapnel from a much larger, intelligent build framework, which doesn't give a fig about appearances.
The 10x engineer myth has been a disaster for software engineers. Most Gen AI helps you shift your thinking and avoids the boring grunt work of search/replace, but it doesn't substitute reading and understanding your code. That's where we spent most of our time, anyway.
Have you seen this?
[MODEL] Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with the Feb updates #42796
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796
Read the "Claude Note" towards the end. It's hilarious.
I think anyone trusting their company to this level of garbage is insane.
Been a few likes and it's already quoteo the millennium. AI or not most of us are cooked if there's a World war. Or even a small war.