Refreshing to see an honest and balanced take on AI coding. This is what real AI-assisted coding looks like once you get past the initial wow factor of having the AI write code that executes and does what you asked.
This experience is familiar to every serious software engineer who has used AI code gen and then reviewed the output:
> But when I reviewed the codebase in detail in late January, the downside was obvious: the codebase was complete spaghetti14. I didn’t understand large parts of the Python source extraction pipeline, functions were scattered in random files without a clear shape, and a few files had grown to several thousand lines. It was extremely fragile; it solved the immediate problem but it was never going to cope with my larger vision,
Some people never get to the part where they review the code. They go straight to their LinkedIn or blog and start writing (or having ChatGPT write) posts about how manual coding is dead and they’re done writing code by hand forever.
Some people review the code and declare it unusable garbage, then also go to their social media and post how AI coding is completely useless and they’re not going to use it for anything.
This blog post shows the journey that anyone not in one of those two vocal minorities is going through right now: A realization that AI coding tools can be a large accelerator but you need to learn how to use them correctly in your workflow and you need to remain involved in the code. It’s not as clickbaity as the extreme takes that get posted all the time. It’s a little disappointing to read the part where they said hard work was still required. It is a realistic and balanced take on the state of AI coding, though.
I’ve been driving Claude as my primary coding interface the last three months at my job. Other than a different domain, I feel like I could have written this exact article.
The project I’m on started as a vibe-coded prototype that quickly got promoted to a production service we sell.
I’ve had to build the mental model after the fact, while refactoring and ripping out large chunks of nonsense or dead code.
But the product wouldn’t exist without that quick and dirty prototype, and I can use Claude as a goddamned chainsaw to clean up.
On Friday, I finally added a type checker pre-commit hook and fixed the 90 existing errors (properly, no type ignores) in ~2 hours. I tried full-agentic first, and it failed miserably, then I went through error by error with Claude, we tightened up some exiting types, fixed some clunky abstractions, and got a nice, clean result.
AI-assisted coding is amazing, but IMO for production code there’s no substitute for human review and guidance.
Fwiw, the article mirrors my experience when I started out too, even exactly with the same first month of vibecoding, then the next project which I did exactly like he outlined too.
Personally, I think it's just the natural flow when you're starting out. If he keeps going, his opinion is going to change and as he gets to know it better, he'll likely go more and more towards vibecoding again.
It's hard to say why, but you get better at it. Even if it's really hard to really put into words why
Agree. This is such a good balanced article. The only things that still make the insights difficult to apply to professional software development are: this was greenfield work and it was a solo project. But that’s hardly the author’s fault. It would however be fantastic to see more articles like this about how to go all in on AI tools for brownfield projects involving more than one person.
One thing I will add: I actually don’t think it’s wrong to start out building a vibe coded spaghetti mess for a project like this… provided you see it as a prototype you’re going to learn from and then throw away. A throwaway prototype is immensely useful because it helps you figure out what you want to build in the first place, before you step down a level and focus on closely guiding the agent to actually build it.
The author’s mistake was that he thought the horrible prototype would evolve into the real thing. Of course it could not. But I suspect that the author’s final results when he did start afresh and build with closer attention to architecture were much better because he has learned more about the requirements for what he wanted to build from that first attempt.
> Some people never get to the part where they review the code. They go straight to their LinkedIn or blog and start writing (or having ChatGPT write) posts about how manual coding is dead and they’re done writing code by hand forever.
Some people review the code and declare it unusable garbage, then also go to their social media and post how AI coding is completely useless and they’re not going to use it for anything. This blog post shows the journey that anyone not in one of those two vocal minorities is going through right now.
What’s really happening is that you’re all of those people in the beginning. Those people are you as you go through the experience. You’re excited after seeing it do the impossible and in later instances you’re critical of the imperfections. It’s like the stages of grief, a sort of Kübler-Ross model for AI.
Professional software engineers like many of us have a big blind spot when it comes to AI coding, and that's a fixation on code quality.
It makes sense to focus on code quality. We're not wrong. After all, we've spent our entire careers in the code. Bad code quality slows us down and makes things slow/insecure/unreliable/etc for end users.
However, code quality is becoming less and less relevant in the age of AI coding, and to ignore that is to have our heads stuck in the sand. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
There are two forces contributing to this: (1) more people coding smaller apps, and (2) improvements in coding models and agentic tools.
We are increasingly moving toward a world where people who aren't sophisticated programmers are "building" their own apps with a user base of just one person. In many cases, these apps are simple and effective and come without the bloat that larger software suites have subjected users to for years. The code is simple, and even when it's not, nobody will ever have to maintain it, so it doesn't matter. Some apps will be unreliable, some will get hacked, some will be slow and inefficient, and it won't matter. This trend will continue to grow.
At the same time, technology is improving, and the AI is increasingly good at designing and architecting software. We are in the very earliest months of AI actually being somewhat competent at this. It's unlikely that it will plateau and stop improving. And even when it finally does, if such a point comes, there will still be many years of improvements in tooling, as humanity's ability to make effective use of a technology always lags far behind the invention of the technology itself.
So I'm right there with you in being annoyed by all the hype and exaggerated claims. But the "truth" about AI-assisted coding is changing every year, every quarter, every month. It's only trending in one direction. And it isn't going to stop.
> However, code quality is becoming less and less relevant in the age of AI coding, and to ignore that is to have our heads stuck in the sand. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
Strong disagree. I just watched a team spend weeks trying to make a piece of code work with AI because the vibe coded was spaghetti garbage that even the AI couldn’t tell what needed to be done and was basically playing ineffective whackamole - it would fix the bug you ask it by reintroducing an old bug or introducing a new bug because no one understood what was happening. And humans couldn’t even step in like normal because no one understood what’s going on.
Okay, so you observed one team had an issue with code quality. What's your point?
In 1998, I'm sure there were newspaper companies who failed at transitioning online. Their websites didn't get traffic, their servers crashed, whatever.
I feel like recently HN has been seeing more takes like this one and at least slightly less of the extremist clickbaity stuff. Maybe it's a sign of maturity. (Or maybe it's just fatigue with the cycle of hyping the absolute-latest model?)
It takes time for people to go through these experiences (three months, in OP's case), and LLMs have only been reasonably good for a few months (since circa Nov'25).
Previously, takes were necessarily shallower or not as insightful ("worked with caveats for me, ymmv") - there just wasn't enough data - although a few have posted fairly balanced takes (@mitsuhiko for example).
I don't think we've seen the last of hypers and doomers though.
It's a very accurate and relatable post. I think one corollary that's important to note to the anti-AI crowd is that this project, even if somewhat spaghettified, will likely take orders of magnitude less time to perfect than it would for someone to create the whole thing from scratch without AI.
I often see criticism towards projects that are AI-driven that assumes that codebase is crystalized in time, when in fact humans can keep iterating with AI on it until it is better. We don't expect an AI-less project to be perfect in 0.1.0, so why expect that from AI? I know the answer is that the marketing and Twitter/LinkedIn slop makes those claims, but it's more useful to see past the hype and investigate how to use these tools which are invariably here to stay
> this project, even if somewhat spaghettified, will likely take orders of magnitude less time to perfect than it would for someone to create the whole thing from scratch without AI
That's a big leap of faith and... kinda contradicts the article as I understood it.
My experience is entirely opposite (and matches my understanding of the article): vibing from the start makes you take orders of magnitude more time to perfect. AI is a multiplier as an assistant, but a divisor as an engineer.
Those extreme takes are taken mostly for clicks or are exaggerated second hand so the "other side's" opinion is dumber than it is to "slam the naysayers". Most people are meh about everything, not on the extremes, so to pander to them you mock the extremes and make them seem more likely. It's just online populism.
> Tests created a similar false comfort. Having 500+ tests felt reassuring, and AI made it easy to generate more. But neither humans nor AI are creative enough to foresee every edge case you’ll hit in the future; there are several times in the vibe-coding phase where I’d come up with a test case and realise the design of some component was completely wrong and needed to be totally reworked. This was a significant contributor to my lack of trust and the decision to scrap everything and start from scratch.
This is my experience. Tests are perhaps the most challenging part of working with AI.
What’s especially awful is any refactor of existing shit code that does not have tests to begin with, and the feature is confusing or inappropriately and unknowingly used multiple places elsewhere.
AI will write test cases that the logic works at all (fine), but the behavior esp what’s covered in an integration test is just not covered at all.
I don’t have a great answer to this yet, especially because this has been most painful to me in a React app, where I don’t know testing best practices. But I’ve been eyeing up behavior driven development paired with spec driven development (AI) as a potential answer here.
Curious if anyone has an approach or framework for generating good tests
Long term, I think the best value AI gives us is a poweful tool to gain understanding. I think we are going to see deep understanding turn into the output goal of LLMs soon. For example, the blocker on this project was the dense C code with 400 rules. Work with LLMs allowed the structure and understanding to be parsed and used to create the tool, but maybe an even more useful output would be full documentation of the rules and their interactions.
This could likely be extracted much easier now from the new code, but imagine API docs or a mapping of the logical ruleset with interwoven commentary - other devtools could be built easily, bug analysis could be done on the structure of rules independent of code, optimizations could be determined on an architectural level, etc.
LLMs need humans to know what to build. If generating code becomes easy, codifying a flexible context or understanding becomes the goal that amplifies what can be generated without effort.
Looks like a clear divide in people‘s experiences based on how they use these new tools:
1) All-knowing oracle which is lightly prompted and develops whole applications from requirements specification to deployable artifacts. Superficial, little to no review of the code before running and committing.
2) An additional tool next to their already established toolset to be used inside or alongside their IDE. Each line gets read and reviewed. The tool needs to defend their choices and manual rework is common for anything from improving documentation to naming things all the way to architectural changes.
Obviously anything in between as well being viable. 1) seems like a crazy dead-end to me if you are looking to build a sustainable service or a fulfilling career.
Really great to see a realistic experience sans hype about AI tools and how they can have an impact.
> But when I reviewed the codebase in detail in late January, the downside was obvious: the codebase was complete spaghetti...It was extremely fragile; it solved the immediate problem but it was never going to cope with my larger vision...I decided to throw away everything and start from scratch
This part was interesting to me as it lines up with Fred Brooks "throw one away" philosophy: "In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. Hence plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow."
As indicated by the experience, AI tools provide a much faster way of getting to that initial throw-away version. That's their bread and butter for where they shine.
Expecting AI tools to go directly to production quality is a fool's errand. This is the right way to use AI - get a quick implementation, see how it works and learn from it but then refactor and be opinionated about the design. It's similar to TDD's Red, Green, Refactor: write a failing test, get the test passing ASAP without worrying about code quality, refactor to make the code better and reliable.
In time, after this hype cycle has died down, we'll come to realize that this is the best way to make use of AI tools over the long run.
> When I had energy, I could write precise, well-scoped prompts and be genuinely productive. But when I was tired, my prompts became vague, the output got worse
This part also echoes my experience - when I know well what I want, I'm able to write more specific specifications and guide along the AI output. When I'm not as clear, the output is worse and I need to spend a lot more time figuring it out or re-prompting.
> architecture is what happens when all those local pieces interact, and you can’t get good global behaviour by stitching together locally correct components
This is a great article. I’ve been trying to see how layered AI use can bridge this gap but the current models do seem to be lacking in the ambiguous design phase. They are amazing at the local execution phase.
Part of me thinks this is a reflection of software engineering as a whole. Most people are bad at design. Everyone usually gets better with repetition and experience. However, as there is never a right answer just a spectrum of tradeoffs, it seems difficult for the current models to replicate that part of the human process.
I’ve had a couple wins with AI in the design phase, where it helped me reach a conclusion that would’ve taken days of exploration, if I ever got there. Both were very long conversations explicitly about design with lots of back and forth, like whiteboarding. Both involved SQL in ClickHouse, which I’m ok but not amazing at — for example I often write queries with window functions, but my mental model of GROUP BY is still incomplete.
In one of the cases, I was searching for a way to extract a bunch of code that 5-6 queries had in common. Whatever this thing was, its parameters would have to include an array/tuple of IDs, and a parameter that would alter the table being selected from, neither of which is allowed in a clickhouse parameterized view. I could write a normal view for this, but performance would’ve been atrocious given ClickHouse’s ok-but-not-great query optimizer.
I asked AI for alternatives, and to discuss the pros and cons of each. I brought up specific scenarios and asked it how it thought the code would work. I asked it to bring what it knew about SQL’s relational algebra to find the an elegant solution.
It finally suggested a template (we’re using Go) to include another sql file, where the parameter is a _named relation_. It can be a CTE or a table, but it doesn’t matter as long as it has the right columns. Aside from poor tooling that doesn’t find things like typos, it’s been a huge win, much better than the duplication. And we have lots of tests that run against the real database to catch those typos.
Maybe this kind of thing exists out there already (if it does, tell me!) but I probably wouldn’t have found it.
It's a huge mistake to start building with Claude without mapping out a project in detail first, by hand. I built a pretty complex device orchestration server + agent recently, and before I set Claude to actually coding I had ~3000 lines of detailed design specs across 7 files that laid out how and what each part of the application would do.
I didn't have to review the code for understanding what Claude did, I reviewed it for verifying that it did what it had been told.
It's also nuts to me that he had to go back in later to build in tests and validation. The second there is an input able to be processed, you bet I have tests covering it. The second a UI is being rendered, I have Playwright taking screenshots (or gtksnapshot for my linux desktop tools).
I think people who are seeing issues at the integration phase of building complex apps are having that happen because they're not keeping the limited context in mind, and preempting those issues by telling their tools exactly how to bridge those gaps themselves.
"Knowing where you are on these axes at any given moment is, I think, the core skill of working with AI effectively."
I like this a lot. It suggests that AI use may sometimes incentivize people to get better at metacognition rather than worse. (It won't in cases where the output is good enough and you don't care.)
Note I believe this one because of the amount of elbow grease that went into it: 250 hours! Based on smaller projects I’ve done I’d say this post is a good model for what a significant AI-assisted systems programming project looks like.
This is the hardest it's ever going to be. That's been my mode for the last year. A lot of what I did in the last month was complete science fiction as little as six months ago. The scope and quality of what is possible seems to leap ahead every few weeks.
I now have several projects going in languages that I've never used. I have a side project in Rust, and two Go projects. I have a few decades experience with backend development in Java, Kotlin (last ten years) and occasionally python. And some limited experience with a few other languages. I know how to structurer backend projects, what to look for, what needs testing, etc.
A lot of people would insist you need to review everything the AI generates. And that's very sensible. Except AI now generates code faster than I can review it. Our ability to review is now the bottleneck. And when stuff kind of works (evidenced by manual and automated testing), what's the right point to just say it's good enough? There are no easy answers here. But you do need to think about what an acceptable level of due diligence is. Vibe coding is basically the equivalent of blindly throwing something at the wall and seeing what sticks. Agentic engineering is on the opposite side of the spectrum.
I actually emphasize a lot of quality attributes in my prompts. The importance of good design, high cohesiveness, low coupling, SOLID principles, etc. Just asking for potential refactoring with an eye on that usually yields a few good opportunities. And then all you need to do is say "sounds good, lets do it". I get a little kick out of doing variations on silly prompts like that. "Make it so" is my favorite. Once you have a good plan, it doesn't really matter what you type.
I also ask critical questions about edge cases, testing the non happy path, hardening, concurrency, latency, throughput, etc. If you don't, AIs kind of default to taking short cuts, only focus on the happy path, or hallucinate that it's all fine, etc. But this doesn't necessarily require detailed reviews to find out. You can make the AI review code and produce detailed lists of everything that is wrong or could be improved. If there's something to be found, it will find it if you prompt it right.
There's an art to this. But I suspect that that too is going to be less work. A lot of this stuff boils down to evolving guardrails to do things right that otherwise go wrong. What if AIs start doing these things right by default? I think this is just going to get better and better.
Thank you. The learning aspect of reading how AI tackles something is rewarding.
It also reduces my hesitation to get started with something I don't know the answer well enough yet. Time 'wasted' on vibe-coding felt less painful than time 'wasted' on heads-down manual coding down a rabbit hole.
This essay perfectly encapsulates my own experience. My biggest frustration is that the AI is astonishingly good at making awful slop which somehow works. It’s got no taste, no concern for elegance, no eagerness for the satisfyingly terse. My job has shifted from code writer to quality control officer.
Nowhere is this more obvious in my current projects than with CRUD interface building. It will go nuts building these elaborate labyrinths and I’m sitting there baffled, bemused, foolishly hoping that THIS time it would recognise that a single SQL query is all that’s needed. It knows how to write complex SQL if you insist, but it never wants to.
But even with those frustrations, damn it is a lot faster than writing it all myself.
This resonates. I had a project sitting in my head for years and finally built it in about 6 weeks recently. The AI part wasn't even the hard part honestly, it was finally commiting to actually shipping instead of overthinking the architecture. The tools just made it possible to move fast enough that I didn't lose momentum and abandon it like every other time.
The author mentions a C codebase. Is AI good at coding in C now? If so, which AI systems lead in this language?
Ideally: local; offline.
Or do I have to wrestle it for 250 hours before it coughs up the dough? Last time I tried, the AI systems struggled with some of the most basic C code.
It seemed fine with Python, but then my cat can do that.
C is actually one of the better supported languages for AI assistants these days, a lot better than it was a year or two ago. The hallucination of APIs problem has improved alot. Models like Claude Sonnet and Qwen 2.5 Coder have much stronger recall of POSIX/stdlib now. The harder remaining challenge with C is that AI still struggles with ownership and lifetime reasoning at scale. It can write correct isolated functions but doesnt always carry the right invariants across a larger codebase, which is exactly the architecture problem the article describes.
For local/offline Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is probably your strongest option if you have the VRAM (or can run it quantized). Handles C better than most other local models in my experience.
The 8-year wait is the part that stands out. Usually the question is "why start now" not "why did it take 8 years". Curious if there was a specific moment where the tools crossed a threshold for you, or if it was more gradual.
For me, the amount of tedium that comes with any new project before I can get to the "good stuff" is a blocker. It's so easy to sit down with excitement, and then 3 hours later, you're still wrestling with basic dependencies, build pipelines, base CSS, etc.
It's kind of click bait tho. "I took 3 months and AI to build a SQLite tool" is not going to stand out. The 8 year wait gives a sense of scale or difficulty but that's actually an illusion and does not reflect the task itself.
This article is describing a problem that is still two steps removed from where AI code becomes actually useful.
90 percent of the things users want either A) dont exist or B) are impossible to find, install and run without being deeply technical.
These things dont need to scale, they dont need to be well designed. They are for the most part targeted, single user, single purpose, artifacts. They are migration scripts between services, they are quick and dirty tools that make bad UI and workflows less manual and more managable.
These are the use cases I am seeing from people OUTSIDE the tech sphere adopt AI coding for. It is what "non techies" are using things like open claw for. I have people who in the past would have been told "No, I will not fix your computer" talk to me excitedly about running cron jobs.
Not everything needs to be snap on quality, the bulk of end users are going to be happy with harbor freight quality because it is better than NO tools at all.
> This article is describing a problem that is still two steps removed from where AI code becomes actually useful.
But it does a good job of countering the narrative you often see on LinkedIn, and to some extent on HN as well, where AI is portrayed as all-capable of developing enterprise software. If you spend any time in discussions hyping AI, you will have seen plenty of confident claims that traditional coding is dead and that AI will replace it soon. Posts like this is useful because it shows a more grounded reality.
> 90 percent of the things users want either A) dont exist or B) are impossible to find, install and run without being deeply technical. These things dont need to scale, they dont need to be well designed. They are for the most part targeted, single user, single purpose, artifacts.
Yes, that is a particular niche where AI can be applied effectively. But many AI proponents go much further and argue that AI is already capable of delivering complex, production-grade systems. They say, you don't need engineers anymore. They say, you only need product owners who can write down the spec. From what I have seen, that claim does not hold up and this article supports that view.
Many users may not be interested in scalability and maintainability... But for a number of us, including the OP and myself, the real question is whether AI can handle situations where scalability, maintainability and sound design DO actually matter. The OP does a good job of understanding this.
A key take away from this article is that you as a developer spending as much time on refactoring as on the actual feature. You are constantly requesting code reviews, architectural assessements, consolidations, extractions etc. only then you can empower AI to become a force multiplier. And prevent slop and spaghetti code to be created. Nice article
Refreshing to see an honest and balanced take on AI coding. This is what real AI-assisted coding looks like once you get past the initial wow factor of having the AI write code that executes and does what you asked.
This experience is familiar to every serious software engineer who has used AI code gen and then reviewed the output:
> But when I reviewed the codebase in detail in late January, the downside was obvious: the codebase was complete spaghetti14. I didn’t understand large parts of the Python source extraction pipeline, functions were scattered in random files without a clear shape, and a few files had grown to several thousand lines. It was extremely fragile; it solved the immediate problem but it was never going to cope with my larger vision,
Some people never get to the part where they review the code. They go straight to their LinkedIn or blog and start writing (or having ChatGPT write) posts about how manual coding is dead and they’re done writing code by hand forever.
Some people review the code and declare it unusable garbage, then also go to their social media and post how AI coding is completely useless and they’re not going to use it for anything.
This blog post shows the journey that anyone not in one of those two vocal minorities is going through right now: A realization that AI coding tools can be a large accelerator but you need to learn how to use them correctly in your workflow and you need to remain involved in the code. It’s not as clickbaity as the extreme takes that get posted all the time. It’s a little disappointing to read the part where they said hard work was still required. It is a realistic and balanced take on the state of AI coding, though.
+1
I’ve been driving Claude as my primary coding interface the last three months at my job. Other than a different domain, I feel like I could have written this exact article.
The project I’m on started as a vibe-coded prototype that quickly got promoted to a production service we sell.
I’ve had to build the mental model after the fact, while refactoring and ripping out large chunks of nonsense or dead code.
But the product wouldn’t exist without that quick and dirty prototype, and I can use Claude as a goddamned chainsaw to clean up.
On Friday, I finally added a type checker pre-commit hook and fixed the 90 existing errors (properly, no type ignores) in ~2 hours. I tried full-agentic first, and it failed miserably, then I went through error by error with Claude, we tightened up some exiting types, fixed some clunky abstractions, and got a nice, clean result.
AI-assisted coding is amazing, but IMO for production code there’s no substitute for human review and guidance.
Fwiw, the article mirrors my experience when I started out too, even exactly with the same first month of vibecoding, then the next project which I did exactly like he outlined too.
Personally, I think it's just the natural flow when you're starting out. If he keeps going, his opinion is going to change and as he gets to know it better, he'll likely go more and more towards vibecoding again.
It's hard to say why, but you get better at it. Even if it's really hard to really put into words why
Agree. This is such a good balanced article. The only things that still make the insights difficult to apply to professional software development are: this was greenfield work and it was a solo project. But that’s hardly the author’s fault. It would however be fantastic to see more articles like this about how to go all in on AI tools for brownfield projects involving more than one person.
One thing I will add: I actually don’t think it’s wrong to start out building a vibe coded spaghetti mess for a project like this… provided you see it as a prototype you’re going to learn from and then throw away. A throwaway prototype is immensely useful because it helps you figure out what you want to build in the first place, before you step down a level and focus on closely guiding the agent to actually build it.
The author’s mistake was that he thought the horrible prototype would evolve into the real thing. Of course it could not. But I suspect that the author’s final results when he did start afresh and build with closer attention to architecture were much better because he has learned more about the requirements for what he wanted to build from that first attempt.
> Some people never get to the part where they review the code. They go straight to their LinkedIn or blog and start writing (or having ChatGPT write) posts about how manual coding is dead and they’re done writing code by hand forever. Some people review the code and declare it unusable garbage, then also go to their social media and post how AI coding is completely useless and they’re not going to use it for anything. This blog post shows the journey that anyone not in one of those two vocal minorities is going through right now.
What’s really happening is that you’re all of those people in the beginning. Those people are you as you go through the experience. You’re excited after seeing it do the impossible and in later instances you’re critical of the imperfections. It’s like the stages of grief, a sort of Kübler-Ross model for AI.
I'll take the other side of this.
Professional software engineers like many of us have a big blind spot when it comes to AI coding, and that's a fixation on code quality.
It makes sense to focus on code quality. We're not wrong. After all, we've spent our entire careers in the code. Bad code quality slows us down and makes things slow/insecure/unreliable/etc for end users.
However, code quality is becoming less and less relevant in the age of AI coding, and to ignore that is to have our heads stuck in the sand. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
There are two forces contributing to this: (1) more people coding smaller apps, and (2) improvements in coding models and agentic tools.
We are increasingly moving toward a world where people who aren't sophisticated programmers are "building" their own apps with a user base of just one person. In many cases, these apps are simple and effective and come without the bloat that larger software suites have subjected users to for years. The code is simple, and even when it's not, nobody will ever have to maintain it, so it doesn't matter. Some apps will be unreliable, some will get hacked, some will be slow and inefficient, and it won't matter. This trend will continue to grow.
At the same time, technology is improving, and the AI is increasingly good at designing and architecting software. We are in the very earliest months of AI actually being somewhat competent at this. It's unlikely that it will plateau and stop improving. And even when it finally does, if such a point comes, there will still be many years of improvements in tooling, as humanity's ability to make effective use of a technology always lags far behind the invention of the technology itself.
So I'm right there with you in being annoyed by all the hype and exaggerated claims. But the "truth" about AI-assisted coding is changing every year, every quarter, every month. It's only trending in one direction. And it isn't going to stop.
> However, code quality is becoming less and less relevant in the age of AI coding, and to ignore that is to have our heads stuck in the sand. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
Strong disagree. I just watched a team spend weeks trying to make a piece of code work with AI because the vibe coded was spaghetti garbage that even the AI couldn’t tell what needed to be done and was basically playing ineffective whackamole - it would fix the bug you ask it by reintroducing an old bug or introducing a new bug because no one understood what was happening. And humans couldn’t even step in like normal because no one understood what’s going on.
Okay, so you observed one team had an issue with code quality. What's your point?
In 1998, I'm sure there were newspaper companies who failed at transitioning online. Their websites didn't get traffic, their servers crashed, whatever.
I feel like recently HN has been seeing more takes like this one and at least slightly less of the extremist clickbaity stuff. Maybe it's a sign of maturity. (Or maybe it's just fatigue with the cycle of hyping the absolute-latest model?)
It takes time for people to go through these experiences (three months, in OP's case), and LLMs have only been reasonably good for a few months (since circa Nov'25).
Previously, takes were necessarily shallower or not as insightful ("worked with caveats for me, ymmv") - there just wasn't enough data - although a few have posted fairly balanced takes (@mitsuhiko for example).
I don't think we've seen the last of hypers and doomers though.
It's a very accurate and relatable post. I think one corollary that's important to note to the anti-AI crowd is that this project, even if somewhat spaghettified, will likely take orders of magnitude less time to perfect than it would for someone to create the whole thing from scratch without AI.
I often see criticism towards projects that are AI-driven that assumes that codebase is crystalized in time, when in fact humans can keep iterating with AI on it until it is better. We don't expect an AI-less project to be perfect in 0.1.0, so why expect that from AI? I know the answer is that the marketing and Twitter/LinkedIn slop makes those claims, but it's more useful to see past the hype and investigate how to use these tools which are invariably here to stay
> this project, even if somewhat spaghettified, will likely take orders of magnitude less time to perfect than it would for someone to create the whole thing from scratch without AI
That's a big leap of faith and... kinda contradicts the article as I understood it.
My experience is entirely opposite (and matches my understanding of the article): vibing from the start makes you take orders of magnitude more time to perfect. AI is a multiplier as an assistant, but a divisor as an engineer.
vibing is different from... steering AI as it goes so it doesn't make fundamentally bad decisions
Those extreme takes are taken mostly for clicks or are exaggerated second hand so the "other side's" opinion is dumber than it is to "slam the naysayers". Most people are meh about everything, not on the extremes, so to pander to them you mock the extremes and make them seem more likely. It's just online populism.
> Tests created a similar false comfort. Having 500+ tests felt reassuring, and AI made it easy to generate more. But neither humans nor AI are creative enough to foresee every edge case you’ll hit in the future; there are several times in the vibe-coding phase where I’d come up with a test case and realise the design of some component was completely wrong and needed to be totally reworked. This was a significant contributor to my lack of trust and the decision to scrap everything and start from scratch.
This is my experience. Tests are perhaps the most challenging part of working with AI.
What’s especially awful is any refactor of existing shit code that does not have tests to begin with, and the feature is confusing or inappropriately and unknowingly used multiple places elsewhere.
AI will write test cases that the logic works at all (fine), but the behavior esp what’s covered in an integration test is just not covered at all.
I don’t have a great answer to this yet, especially because this has been most painful to me in a React app, where I don’t know testing best practices. But I’ve been eyeing up behavior driven development paired with spec driven development (AI) as a potential answer here.
Curious if anyone has an approach or framework for generating good tests
Long term, I think the best value AI gives us is a poweful tool to gain understanding. I think we are going to see deep understanding turn into the output goal of LLMs soon. For example, the blocker on this project was the dense C code with 400 rules. Work with LLMs allowed the structure and understanding to be parsed and used to create the tool, but maybe an even more useful output would be full documentation of the rules and their interactions.
This could likely be extracted much easier now from the new code, but imagine API docs or a mapping of the logical ruleset with interwoven commentary - other devtools could be built easily, bug analysis could be done on the structure of rules independent of code, optimizations could be determined on an architectural level, etc.
LLMs need humans to know what to build. If generating code becomes easy, codifying a flexible context or understanding becomes the goal that amplifies what can be generated without effort.
Looks like a clear divide in people‘s experiences based on how they use these new tools:
1) All-knowing oracle which is lightly prompted and develops whole applications from requirements specification to deployable artifacts. Superficial, little to no review of the code before running and committing.
2) An additional tool next to their already established toolset to be used inside or alongside their IDE. Each line gets read and reviewed. The tool needs to defend their choices and manual rework is common for anything from improving documentation to naming things all the way to architectural changes.
Obviously anything in between as well being viable. 1) seems like a crazy dead-end to me if you are looking to build a sustainable service or a fulfilling career.
Really great to see a realistic experience sans hype about AI tools and how they can have an impact.
> But when I reviewed the codebase in detail in late January, the downside was obvious: the codebase was complete spaghetti...It was extremely fragile; it solved the immediate problem but it was never going to cope with my larger vision...I decided to throw away everything and start from scratch
This part was interesting to me as it lines up with Fred Brooks "throw one away" philosophy: "In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. Hence plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow."
As indicated by the experience, AI tools provide a much faster way of getting to that initial throw-away version. That's their bread and butter for where they shine.
Expecting AI tools to go directly to production quality is a fool's errand. This is the right way to use AI - get a quick implementation, see how it works and learn from it but then refactor and be opinionated about the design. It's similar to TDD's Red, Green, Refactor: write a failing test, get the test passing ASAP without worrying about code quality, refactor to make the code better and reliable.
In time, after this hype cycle has died down, we'll come to realize that this is the best way to make use of AI tools over the long run.
> When I had energy, I could write precise, well-scoped prompts and be genuinely productive. But when I was tired, my prompts became vague, the output got worse
This part also echoes my experience - when I know well what I want, I'm able to write more specific specifications and guide along the AI output. When I'm not as clear, the output is worse and I need to spend a lot more time figuring it out or re-prompting.
> architecture is what happens when all those local pieces interact, and you can’t get good global behaviour by stitching together locally correct components
This is a great article. I’ve been trying to see how layered AI use can bridge this gap but the current models do seem to be lacking in the ambiguous design phase. They are amazing at the local execution phase.
Part of me thinks this is a reflection of software engineering as a whole. Most people are bad at design. Everyone usually gets better with repetition and experience. However, as there is never a right answer just a spectrum of tradeoffs, it seems difficult for the current models to replicate that part of the human process.
I’ve had a couple wins with AI in the design phase, where it helped me reach a conclusion that would’ve taken days of exploration, if I ever got there. Both were very long conversations explicitly about design with lots of back and forth, like whiteboarding. Both involved SQL in ClickHouse, which I’m ok but not amazing at — for example I often write queries with window functions, but my mental model of GROUP BY is still incomplete.
In one of the cases, I was searching for a way to extract a bunch of code that 5-6 queries had in common. Whatever this thing was, its parameters would have to include an array/tuple of IDs, and a parameter that would alter the table being selected from, neither of which is allowed in a clickhouse parameterized view. I could write a normal view for this, but performance would’ve been atrocious given ClickHouse’s ok-but-not-great query optimizer.
I asked AI for alternatives, and to discuss the pros and cons of each. I brought up specific scenarios and asked it how it thought the code would work. I asked it to bring what it knew about SQL’s relational algebra to find the an elegant solution.
It finally suggested a template (we’re using Go) to include another sql file, where the parameter is a _named relation_. It can be a CTE or a table, but it doesn’t matter as long as it has the right columns. Aside from poor tooling that doesn’t find things like typos, it’s been a huge win, much better than the duplication. And we have lots of tests that run against the real database to catch those typos.
Maybe this kind of thing exists out there already (if it does, tell me!) but I probably wouldn’t have found it.
It's a huge mistake to start building with Claude without mapping out a project in detail first, by hand. I built a pretty complex device orchestration server + agent recently, and before I set Claude to actually coding I had ~3000 lines of detailed design specs across 7 files that laid out how and what each part of the application would do.
I didn't have to review the code for understanding what Claude did, I reviewed it for verifying that it did what it had been told.
It's also nuts to me that he had to go back in later to build in tests and validation. The second there is an input able to be processed, you bet I have tests covering it. The second a UI is being rendered, I have Playwright taking screenshots (or gtksnapshot for my linux desktop tools).
I think people who are seeing issues at the integration phase of building complex apps are having that happen because they're not keeping the limited context in mind, and preempting those issues by telling their tools exactly how to bridge those gaps themselves.
"Knowing where you are on these axes at any given moment is, I think, the core skill of working with AI effectively."
I like this a lot. It suggests that AI use may sometimes incentivize people to get better at metacognition rather than worse. (It won't in cases where the output is good enough and you don't care.)
Note I believe this one because of the amount of elbow grease that went into it: 250 hours! Based on smaller projects I’ve done I’d say this post is a good model for what a significant AI-assisted systems programming project looks like.
This is the hardest it's ever going to be. That's been my mode for the last year. A lot of what I did in the last month was complete science fiction as little as six months ago. The scope and quality of what is possible seems to leap ahead every few weeks.
I now have several projects going in languages that I've never used. I have a side project in Rust, and two Go projects. I have a few decades experience with backend development in Java, Kotlin (last ten years) and occasionally python. And some limited experience with a few other languages. I know how to structurer backend projects, what to look for, what needs testing, etc.
A lot of people would insist you need to review everything the AI generates. And that's very sensible. Except AI now generates code faster than I can review it. Our ability to review is now the bottleneck. And when stuff kind of works (evidenced by manual and automated testing), what's the right point to just say it's good enough? There are no easy answers here. But you do need to think about what an acceptable level of due diligence is. Vibe coding is basically the equivalent of blindly throwing something at the wall and seeing what sticks. Agentic engineering is on the opposite side of the spectrum.
I actually emphasize a lot of quality attributes in my prompts. The importance of good design, high cohesiveness, low coupling, SOLID principles, etc. Just asking for potential refactoring with an eye on that usually yields a few good opportunities. And then all you need to do is say "sounds good, lets do it". I get a little kick out of doing variations on silly prompts like that. "Make it so" is my favorite. Once you have a good plan, it doesn't really matter what you type.
I also ask critical questions about edge cases, testing the non happy path, hardening, concurrency, latency, throughput, etc. If you don't, AIs kind of default to taking short cuts, only focus on the happy path, or hallucinate that it's all fine, etc. But this doesn't necessarily require detailed reviews to find out. You can make the AI review code and produce detailed lists of everything that is wrong or could be improved. If there's something to be found, it will find it if you prompt it right.
There's an art to this. But I suspect that that too is going to be less work. A lot of this stuff boils down to evolving guardrails to do things right that otherwise go wrong. What if AIs start doing these things right by default? I think this is just going to get better and better.
This is very close to my experience. And I agree with the conclusion I would like to see more of this
Thank you. The learning aspect of reading how AI tackles something is rewarding.
It also reduces my hesitation to get started with something I don't know the answer well enough yet. Time 'wasted' on vibe-coding felt less painful than time 'wasted' on heads-down manual coding down a rabbit hole.
This essay perfectly encapsulates my own experience. My biggest frustration is that the AI is astonishingly good at making awful slop which somehow works. It’s got no taste, no concern for elegance, no eagerness for the satisfyingly terse. My job has shifted from code writer to quality control officer.
Nowhere is this more obvious in my current projects than with CRUD interface building. It will go nuts building these elaborate labyrinths and I’m sitting there baffled, bemused, foolishly hoping that THIS time it would recognise that a single SQL query is all that’s needed. It knows how to write complex SQL if you insist, but it never wants to.
But even with those frustrations, damn it is a lot faster than writing it all myself.
Trim your scope and define your response format prior to asking or commanding.
Most of my questions are "in one sentence respond: long rambling context and question"
This resonates. I had a project sitting in my head for years and finally built it in about 6 weeks recently. The AI part wasn't even the hard part honestly, it was finally commiting to actually shipping instead of overthinking the architecture. The tools just made it possible to move fast enough that I didn't lose momentum and abandon it like every other time.
The author mentions a C codebase. Is AI good at coding in C now? If so, which AI systems lead in this language?
Ideally: local; offline.
Or do I have to wrestle it for 250 hours before it coughs up the dough? Last time I tried, the AI systems struggled with some of the most basic C code.
It seemed fine with Python, but then my cat can do that.
C is actually one of the better supported languages for AI assistants these days, a lot better than it was a year or two ago. The hallucination of APIs problem has improved alot. Models like Claude Sonnet and Qwen 2.5 Coder have much stronger recall of POSIX/stdlib now. The harder remaining challenge with C is that AI still struggles with ownership and lifetime reasoning at scale. It can write correct isolated functions but doesnt always carry the right invariants across a larger codebase, which is exactly the architecture problem the article describes.
For local/offline Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is probably your strongest option if you have the VRAM (or can run it quantized). Handles C better than most other local models in my experience.
This a very insightful post. Thanks for taking the time to share your experience. AI is incredibly powerful, but it’s no free-lunch.
The 8-year wait is the part that stands out. Usually the question is "why start now" not "why did it take 8 years". Curious if there was a specific moment where the tools crossed a threshold for you, or if it was more gradual.
For me, the amount of tedium that comes with any new project before I can get to the "good stuff" is a blocker. It's so easy to sit down with excitement, and then 3 hours later, you're still wrestling with basic dependencies, build pipelines, base CSS, etc.
Have you tried using starting templates for projects? For many platforms there are cookiecutters or other tools to jump over those.
It's kind of click bait tho. "I took 3 months and AI to build a SQLite tool" is not going to stand out. The 8 year wait gives a sense of scale or difficulty but that's actually an illusion and does not reflect the task itself.
when he decided on rust, he could have looked up sqlite port, libsqlite does a pretty good job.
> Of all the ways I used AI, research had by far the highest ratio of value delivered to time spent.
Seconded!
This article is describing a problem that is still two steps removed from where AI code becomes actually useful.
90 percent of the things users want either A) dont exist or B) are impossible to find, install and run without being deeply technical.
These things dont need to scale, they dont need to be well designed. They are for the most part targeted, single user, single purpose, artifacts. They are migration scripts between services, they are quick and dirty tools that make bad UI and workflows less manual and more managable.
These are the use cases I am seeing from people OUTSIDE the tech sphere adopt AI coding for. It is what "non techies" are using things like open claw for. I have people who in the past would have been told "No, I will not fix your computer" talk to me excitedly about running cron jobs.
Not everything needs to be snap on quality, the bulk of end users are going to be happy with harbor freight quality because it is better than NO tools at all.
> This article is describing a problem that is still two steps removed from where AI code becomes actually useful.
But it does a good job of countering the narrative you often see on LinkedIn, and to some extent on HN as well, where AI is portrayed as all-capable of developing enterprise software. If you spend any time in discussions hyping AI, you will have seen plenty of confident claims that traditional coding is dead and that AI will replace it soon. Posts like this is useful because it shows a more grounded reality.
> 90 percent of the things users want either A) dont exist or B) are impossible to find, install and run without being deeply technical. These things dont need to scale, they dont need to be well designed. They are for the most part targeted, single user, single purpose, artifacts.
Yes, that is a particular niche where AI can be applied effectively. But many AI proponents go much further and argue that AI is already capable of delivering complex, production-grade systems. They say, you don't need engineers anymore. They say, you only need product owners who can write down the spec. From what I have seen, that claim does not hold up and this article supports that view.
Many users may not be interested in scalability and maintainability... But for a number of us, including the OP and myself, the real question is whether AI can handle situations where scalability, maintainability and sound design DO actually matter. The OP does a good job of understanding this.
Great write-up with provenance
A key take away from this article is that you as a developer spending as much time on refactoring as on the actual feature. You are constantly requesting code reviews, architectural assessements, consolidations, extractions etc. only then you can empower AI to become a force multiplier. And prevent slop and spaghetti code to be created. Nice article
article looks like a tweet turned into 30 paragraphs. hardly any taste.
Yes, how dare someone take an idea, develop it, and publish it outside the algorithm-driven rage pit. Truly terrible behavior! /s
Expanding a thought beyond 280 characters and publishing it somewhere other than the X outrage machine is something we should be encouraging.