3 ms·

Then you may as well said you've solved P=NP. We do not require links to your app. What people are expecting is a description of your approach and sample outpu

Then you may as well said you've solved P=NP. We do not require links to your app. What people are expecting is a description of your approach and sample outputs. So that someone else can try it and have the same standard of output. That's how you make a point that your approach is good. When we buy books like "The Practice of Programming" or "The Pragmatic Programmer", it's because we are hoping to learn useful and productive behaviors. It isn't to hear boasts about how good the authors are good at using tools. Even self-help books follow this pattern: Do this, expect that. They're not "Have you tried this too" or "I don't know about you, but I've got good results myself".

user43928 2mo ago
I am here to discuss my opinions on AI for software development because it's interesting. Not because I am selling a book or to prove anything to you. If I had any special approach, I would be reluctant to share it with my potential competitors. That said, I do not. It just works. Meanwhile people here are posting the thesis that agentic development without careful code review results in an unmaintainable application. I theorize that this is not something they experienced in practice, because it did not happen for me.
- skydhash 2mo ago
  > Meanwhile people here are posting the thesis that agentic development without careful code review results in an unmaintainable application. > I theorize that this is not something they experienced in practice, because it did not happen for me. Are you currently maintaining the application? Like it's in production with paying users? You've only been on the app for 4 months. Compare that to something like Emacs that has been going for 40+ years. You can make a better case when you've been on prod for a few years.
  - user43928 2mo ago
    By that standard, we could have AGI tomorrow, and I should still not comment. No, my app is not published yet. It will probably take another month, with hopefully no complications arising out of the AppStore review process. Then, I hope the ad campaign financials work out to compete with old apps of a lower quality that already boast no less than a million reviews. I get it, you want me to make a case that can objectively convince you of the usefulness of agentic development without code review. From my perspective, I have no interest in doing so, and I can only share my experience so far. In a few months time we will know more objectively whether my ambitions paid off. Until then, you will either have to take my word for the quality of the product, or spend tens to hundreds of hours of effort in trying the approach for yourself. OP's article does not contain any specifics for where and how supposedly agentic development failed him either.
    - voidhorse 2mo ago
      But can't you see how coming out with a strong statement like "i've been doing this, it works" before your app even has a single user and before you've had to contend with any externally filed bug reports and keep the app stable as you fix those and add new features isn't very reasonable? If anything there are clear counter example to your claim, such as the major provider agent harnesses which are all almost always fully vibe coded, and riddled with bugs and regressions that make using them painful for users. The only reason people put up with it is because competition in the space is still limited.
      - user43928 2mo ago
        Don't you think I've fixed bugs and kept the app stable during the 300 hours I have been working on it? That's why I can say with full confidence that it works. I doubt it will magically all fall apart the moment an external user touches it, or that I will expand the scope dramatically in the near future. The agent harnesses are an interesting topic. I believe they have large teams shipping a ton of changes weekly. In that environment, is it realistic to expect rock solid software with such a feature set to be developed in a few months and shipped to 10M users?
        voidhorse 2mo ago
        > The agent harnesses are an interesting topic. I believe they have large teams shipping a ton of changes weekly. In that environment, is it realistic to expect rock solid software with such a feature set to be developed in a few months and shipped to 10M users? Yes, the whole argument is that LLMs make shipping quality software at scale in months possible. You're arguing out of two sides of your mouth now. On the one hand, agents have enabled you to build a bullet-proof high quality app in a few months as a solo dev. On the other hand it's supposedly unreasonable to expect a team of engineers with lots of funding and lots of expertise to use those same LLMs to build high quality software in a few months. The main difference is you are still working in a vacuum and the harness teams have actually shipped to users. Once you do that, you face significantly more challenges than you do tinkering in isolation. Don't claim a methodology works until you've actually proven so. "My personal closed source pet project that no one but me has ever seen works" is not convincing evidence. My pet dragon who is definitely real but that I can't show anyone else agrees.

user43928 2mo ago

I am here to discuss my opinions on AI for software development because it's interesting. Not because I am selling a book or to prove anything to you. If I had any special approach, I would be reluctant to share it with my potential competitors. That said, I do not. It just works. Meanwhile people here are posting the thesis that agentic development without careful code review results in an unmaintainable application. I theorize that this is not something they experienced in practice, because it did not happen for me.

skydhash 2mo ago
> Meanwhile people here are posting the thesis that agentic development without careful code review results in an unmaintainable application. > I theorize that this is not something they experienced in practice, because it did not happen for me. Are you currently maintaining the application? Like it's in production with paying users? You've only been on the app for 4 months. Compare that to something like Emacs that has been going for 40+ years. You can make a better case when you've been on prod for a few years.
- user43928 2mo ago
  By that standard, we could have AGI tomorrow, and I should still not comment. No, my app is not published yet. It will probably take another month, with hopefully no complications arising out of the AppStore review process. Then, I hope the ad campaign financials work out to compete with old apps of a lower quality that already boast no less than a million reviews. I get it, you want me to make a case that can objectively convince you of the usefulness of agentic development without code review. From my perspective, I have no interest in doing so, and I can only share my experience so far. In a few months time we will know more objectively whether my ambitions paid off. Until then, you will either have to take my word for the quality of the product, or spend tens to hundreds of hours of effort in trying the approach for yourself. OP's article does not contain any specifics for where and how supposedly agentic development failed him either.
  - voidhorse 2mo ago
    But can't you see how coming out with a strong statement like "i've been doing this, it works" before your app even has a single user and before you've had to contend with any externally filed bug reports and keep the app stable as you fix those and add new features isn't very reasonable? If anything there are clear counter example to your claim, such as the major provider agent harnesses which are all almost always fully vibe coded, and riddled with bugs and regressions that make using them painful for users. The only reason people put up with it is because competition in the space is still limited.
    - user43928 2mo ago
      Don't you think I've fixed bugs and kept the app stable during the 300 hours I have been working on it? That's why I can say with full confidence that it works. I doubt it will magically all fall apart the moment an external user touches it, or that I will expand the scope dramatically in the near future. The agent harnesses are an interesting topic. I believe they have large teams shipping a ton of changes weekly. In that environment, is it realistic to expect rock solid software with such a feature set to be developed in a few months and shipped to 10M users?
      - voidhorse 2mo ago
        > The agent harnesses are an interesting topic. I believe they have large teams shipping a ton of changes weekly. In that environment, is it realistic to expect rock solid software with such a feature set to be developed in a few months and shipped to 10M users? Yes, the whole argument is that LLMs make shipping quality software at scale in months possible. You're arguing out of two sides of your mouth now. On the one hand, agents have enabled you to build a bullet-proof high quality app in a few months as a solo dev. On the other hand it's supposedly unreasonable to expect a team of engineers with lots of funding and lots of expertise to use those same LLMs to build high quality software in a few months. The main difference is you are still working in a vacuum and the harness teams have actually shipped to users. Once you do that, you face significantly more challenges than you do tinkering in isolation. Don't claim a methodology works until you've actually proven so. "My personal closed source pet project that no one but me has ever seen works" is not convincing evidence. My pet dragon who is definitely real but that I can't show anyone else agrees.