3 ms·

From TFA: "What I mean by this is that I think the act of writing code manually and having other humans review it to create useful, working software is headed

From TFA: "What I mean by this is that I think the act of writing code manually and having other humans review it to create useful, working software is headed for extinction." “Since FORTRAN should virtually eliminate coding and debugging…” -- FORTRAN report, 1954 [1] And the FORTRAN report was both right and wrong. What was meant by "coding" back then, carefully crafting machine instructions from higher level specifications, was almost entirely eliminated. It was replaced by something else, which we now call coding. [1] http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/BackusEtAl-Preliminary%20Report-1954.pdf http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/BackusE...

cubefox 1mo ago
So you are suggesting we will soon drop the "vibe" from "vibe coding"?
- xboxnolifes 1mo ago
  I think we have been doing that for a while already. Seems like almost every major company is using LLMs for coding internally and people dont consider that vibe coding. Culturally, it feels like we've already speedran the pipeline of "vibe coding is using LLMs without reading the code" to "vibe coding is using LLMs for code" to "using LLMs is just a tool for coding". LLMs seems to now be mostly accepted for coding (on HN at least), the discussion has shifted to how useful and in what ways.
  - cubefox 1mo ago
    Yeah, but the semantic question is whether LLMs being accepted to use for coding means that the software engineer who merely instructs the LLM is thereby also "coding" (similar to how someone who merely writes Fortran, rather than machine code, is nowadays also described as "coding") or whether the only entity that is described here as "coding" is the LLM.
zoig_nk 1mo ago
Big difference is that now C level management really tries to push this narrative down to our throats. People who are writing and claiming thing like this should be held accountable for it. It is easy to try to scare developers that their job is going away. Especially for gaining attention. Currently I don't see difference between these claims and conspiracy theories...

cubefox 1mo ago

So you are suggesting we will soon drop the "vibe" from "vibe coding"?

xboxnolifes 1mo ago
I think we have been doing that for a while already. Seems like almost every major company is using LLMs for coding internally and people dont consider that vibe coding. Culturally, it feels like we've already speedran the pipeline of "vibe coding is using LLMs without reading the code" to "vibe coding is using LLMs for code" to "using LLMs is just a tool for coding". LLMs seems to now be mostly accepted for coding (on HN at least), the discussion has shifted to how useful and in what ways.
- cubefox 1mo ago
  Yeah, but the semantic question is whether LLMs being accepted to use for coding means that the software engineer who merely instructs the LLM is thereby also "coding" (similar to how someone who merely writes Fortran, rather than machine code, is nowadays also described as "coding") or whether the only entity that is described here as "coding" is the LLM.

zoig_nk 1mo ago

Big difference is that now C level management really tries to push this narrative down to our throats. People who are writing and claiming thing like this should be held accountable for it. It is easy to try to scare developers that their job is going away. Especially for gaining attention. Currently I don't see difference between these claims and conspiracy theories...