> Or perhaps haven't really seen the reality that there's a LOT of code out there which is terrible and still does the job and still keeps people employed. 1.

> Or perhaps haven't really seen the reality that there's a LOT of code out there which is terrible and still does the job and still keeps people employed. 1. There is a big difference between terrible code that works in production, and terrible code that doesn't even work. And tge vast majority of the code I've generated by my LLM doesn't even work. 2. Software is inherently useful to enable change. If you don't want to change it, burn the program onto a chip and have it run faster. But we are here talking because you want to be able to change it. Terrible code makes change harder, riskier, slower, more expensive. The curves have already been discovered by others, I am not inventing any new knowledge here: there are software projects where longevity is of buisness criticality and there are others where the project will be thrown away in 1,2,3,5 years. If you'll throw it away, sure go ahead and vibe it. If you want it to stay, you're gonna have a bad time as changes become more and more expensive.