ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
61% Positive
Analyzed from 4403 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#code#don#review#quality#write#more#software#issue#system#better
Discussion (92 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
However, I just don't think that's realistic. It's asking an author to suddenly become an editor. It's asking somebody who writes code to now read and debug others code.
It can actually be harder to find the the bug in a tricky piece of code than it can be to write your own correct code from scratch. I see AI introduce all sorts of bugs all the time in my personal projects that I would never introduce, and would never think to test for, especially around anything graphical.
That's exactly right. Open source projects are currently drowning under LLM generated PRs, where those who used to write code are simply punting that work to AI, but still expecting others to review it. It's not okay to expect such a free lunch. If you moved the labour of writing code one step away, then you are yourself the first line of defence now, so you better start reviewing code that you claim to be yours.
This has been a big part of the job for anyone on a team for at least 20 years. I do agree that it’s the hardest and worst part of the job, and has now become the majority of the job for anyone who isn’t vibe coding. So, that sucks.
Anybody who has reviewed pull requests can tell you that sooner or later you approve a PR after many rounds of changes because it's finally "good enough".
Fighting with a robot to just do the damned thing is less fraught because they don't get offended by critiques but it takes more round trips to get them pointed in the direction you want.
I think that’s right, and what is needed. It still gives a significant speed up for coding, while still keeping the output human maintainable.
There is the idea that the agent will just produce binary code directly at some point. I don’t know if it ever comes to that but for now I’m in the ‘I’ve become an editor’ camp.
I’m doubtful that the author’s recommendation always work, but I do some similar things and they do seem to help.
I'd like to think the time and practice I've put into software engineering has made me better at it. If that's not true, then there's no reason to prefer senior or principal engineers with years of experience over newcomers.
You've missed the point. Nobody doubts writing code well or badly is indeed a skill issue.
The question is that "once you account for all of the things you need to do to make the code very high quality, did vibe coding actually provide any real value?"
I'm certain there are guardrails that help bolster vibe coding but I'm equally certain that when ive prompted something important I usually have to redo it enough times that just writing it manually myself usually would have been quicker.
Then I watch other people who code who dump on that opinion and I see total slop. They just can't tell the difference.
That seems to be the primary difference I’ve found between people who embrace gen code and those who dont
The ones who dont, seem to like the physical act of typing, and that tends to cluster with people who write software all day
That wasn't the case with 00s agile / Uncle Bob stuff since proving that any of it was helpful was impossible - you just had to believe (and if you didn't believe there was something wrong with you!).
Though arguably more of a process and judgement issue than skill.
What makes LLM-generated code a bit special there is that misjudging how to deal with it seems to be what most people do. So the default is broken.
Whereas in prior iterations of "skill issue", the default was working.
You don't think crash will happen because XYZ. You _wish_ for the crash because you are hateful of progress that you are not part of.
Microsoft 2000
> You _wish_ for the crash because you are hateful of progress that you are not part of.
Facebook 2008
> You _wish_ for the crash because you are hateful of progress that you are not part of.
Cryptobros 2013
> You _wish_ for the crash because you are hateful of progress that you are not part of.
Altman/Dario/Musk 2020-onwards.
There might be a trend here...
Over the last year, LLM coding agents gotten pretty good. It's no longer "if your results suck, you gotta try the latest and greatest model". You can get capable results on a wide variety of tasks, with a wide variety of models, used in a wide variety of ways.
1. they don't care
2. the rest of the team doesn't care
3. the powers that be actively discourage it because velocity.
LLMs let you move faster.
But it's not as if introducing them is the only reason your codebase isn't high quality.
I think the bigger issue (like many things in software engineering) is a management issue. Once upon a time, I could take a look at the final output of a project and if it looked like a Ferrari on the outside, I could have some confidence that there was a good engine under the hood. OF COURSE THIS WASNT ALWAYS TRUE, but something that looked good, or was performant, or whatever, was a decent proxy for the code underneath being good. And with a smart human, there were ancillary things. Having spent 20 hours coding something, they probably thought through the edge cases that their manager, or product team hadn’t considered.
With AI, everyone’s output looks like a Ferrari, so it is hard to know what the internals are like.
A lot of people will probably look at this and say “well you need better management”, but better management has always been elusive in software engineering. Furthermore, reviewing AI generated code is soul crushing work and I don’t know who wants to do it.
In my guesstimate the number of good engineering managers out there is actually very very small and in practice, the best managers that I’ve seen are the ones who don’t think they are good managers, so they just set a very high hiring bar and hire people who don’t need much management.
I think where things get dicey is being able to write in any language. I write and review code in many languages and frameworks I'm not fluent in, so it's hard for me to distinguish between working code and great code. I can spot when the fundamental logic is wrong, but when it comes to "best fit" choices I'm clueless.
The thing is, if you follow SWE best practices indiscriminately, then you ll have a shit code base in no time.
There is no silver bullet, and no replacement for experience and mindfulness.
At work, with a team and code reviews, the 50%-100% figure seems much more likely.
This can probably move towards the more spectacular productivity gains as the AI's output becomes more reliable, people realize this, and less time is spend on code review and cleaning up the output.
This is something I have been trying to get right as well. I've attempted to use lots of linting and things like strong typing, duplicate checks, cyclomatic complexity, and robust tests. However, I still happen to find issues, which requires me to look at the code (at least at a high level)
For example, I can say "Don't repeat yourself, and don't re-write helper functions" and I will even have a duplicate linter check, but inevitably the LLM will always want to re-write a similar yet slightly different helper function. Like it will always want to re-write something small like a trim() or a toString() function in every file.
But if I add a separate post-implementation pass to "find and fix X" by the agent, it'll usually find and fix the issues.
So I've started doing it for everything from naming conventions to duplicate code to other problems. It does cost more tokens, but now I get less frustrated at having to fix basic issues in the PRs.
I have better luck telling it positive things rather than lots of "never do X" style things.
"Never re-write a helper function" vs "Always search for helper functions before writing one" the "never... " one doesn't tell the LLM what to do, so it would have to make the logical leap from not re-writing to knowing that it should search. While it's a minor leap to make in isolation, I suppose stacking many negative rules in an AGENTS.md would assume that every time it will always make that logical conclusion on what to do.
When implementing new features or making large refactoring changes; I use the superpowers:brainstorming skill. That has consistent process which has worked really well. I alway review the code before merging, but most of the time there are few issues to correct.
I don't do 95% coverage, but I have increased it from 65% to about +80% and that is sufficient.
Kindly share the metrics by which you evaluate the changes.
If this is true, then you are not saving a lot of time. Because most of the time is spent evaluating various options and ways to implement the functionality. Even when you are reviewing, you ll have to do that. (With LLMs, this is even more feasible, because now you can actually implement some of the variants, and evaluate them).
But on the other side, you are saving from typing the code. So if you are really reviewing everything, then you are not saving much time. The alternative is that you settle for some local maximum during each review, that in long term won't necessarly translate to a globlal maximum or even a global "good enough" position...
I'm happily vibing my own toy projects, but would prefer if the tech in hospitals is not vibe coded.
And I don't think it's plausible that the gap between those two is "well you just need to use it right".
If the compiler that I write produces lousy code, I get bugs that I fix until it doesn’t.
And that is the most annoying thing about this revolution. It’s obviously powerful and transformative and I use in my job all the time.
But many, perhaps even most, purveyors seem intent on blaming their users when they have issues, rather than fixing their own bugs.
General model improvement is going a long way here, but basic things like “ensure you use good style and programming practices” really shouldn’t be a thing users need to put in any .md file.
AIs are stochastic/probabilistic machines. Their big potential is in how they take malformed, incomplete, ambiguous inputs and come up with valuable and usable solutions.
Good defaults are expected in pretty much every other tool.
And “You just have to set it up carefully and properly” is pretty much saying that the defaults are never good enough.
They are already present in the harness.
In my opinion there is all kind of worthless advice going around, including skills or prompts, where the authors have never benchmarked them against clean runs.
That said, when you are dissatisfied with specific aspects, it can be beneficial to request them as a separate review stage.
Its lack of “quality” (always invoked in a metaphysical sense) isn’t a problem for most of its uses. It can automate, research, build boilerplate, and test way faster than a human.
1) Plan the hell out of everything. Aggressively have multiple agents weigh-in on that plan, in sequential waves. Don't skimp here.
2) Have subagents review every code commit.
3) Create tests for EVERYTHING. If something breaks you want it discovered immediately. Not just unit tests - use golden masters to ensure your UI doesn't break, etc, etc.
Nothing magical, but it gets me to a very stable dev system. And all I have to do is paste those three rules into my agent, and he does it all for me. It's not difficult.
No LLM will destroy any code base in any time frame without permission from an human operator. That person is responsible for allowing the code base being destroyed.
My manager expects stuff to be done 10 times quicker than 2 years ago, and that can't happen if I spend time understanding and fixing all code being pushed. At that point I might as well write it myself.
1. update my old open source projects by searching for and fixing defects, adding tests and documentation
2. working on my own agentic coding harnesses, using the coding harness I am modifying to update itself. I am tightly in the loop
Sure, not highly practical use of AI, but I am retired!
Which perhaps isn’t a complete surprise in retrospect because it represents something of a return to the waterfall-y, micro-managed enterprisey style of software development that the agile movement was originally responding to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605246
There also exist other good reasons why projects don't want AI-generated code, in particular
- because of unclarity of copyright status and consequences of AI-generated code
- because the project leader simply made the observation than many programmers who hand in AI-generated code care more about "getting things done" and "pushing through their changes" (possibly to boost their CV) instead of deeply caring about code quality
If an LLM makes a good codebase bad, you can't in good faith blame the coders. You blame the LLM.
Eh. I wouldn't focus on unit test coverage.
I think it's true that good, well tested code will have higher code coverage than crappy code.
But, above a certain point (which will vary from codebase to codebase), unit tests aren't meaningfully increasing confidence that the code is working.
I'd recommend focusing instead on the code being written in a pure 'functional core, imperative shell' to the extent that's possible. For that pure/functional part, 100% code coverage is attainable (& so not worth remarking on). For the impure parts, unit tests are probably using "mocks" just to get the code to compile anyway.
As a simple experiment, try giving AI a high level goal for your software and let it iterate on it by just repeatedly prompting it to continue, it will happily churn forever on the goal, turning the codebase into a useless spaghetti mess with very high probability, and growing it more and more without ever cutting anything back. That's what happens without human intervention regarding system state and manipulation. The main issues here are most prompts that are extremely underspecified ("fix the issue with the buttons on the main page") so AI will ingest context data it likely generated itself in a previous step and assumptions from its own training data, then act on that to produce a new state. Think of it like a random walk, the AI makes a small step in one random direction to achieve a goal, that brings the system to a new state which is now the basis for the next step, and so on. If there's no (or not enough) corrective action that pulls the system back to a known good reference state it will keep wandering in random directions.
That's the main issue, people have a hard time steering recursive, probabilistic systems, especially when they never look at the output of the system after each step and correct it. And let's be real, if you examine AI generated output in great detail after each iteration you're often better off writing the code yourself, so I would argue that the promised speed up of agentic development can only be realized if you stop inspecting every output of the system. And it seems we still haven't figured out how to specify the steering instructions that keep a system close to a given ideal state that allow unsupervised, recursive work on most codebases. I think some codebases are by themselves better suited for this as they provide a more rigid harness for AI development and exist in the training data (e.g. CRUD apps using RoR), whereas complex software that doesn't use rigid frameworks is at much higher risk of destruction by AI as there's no reference point in the training data that would hold the AI back from randomly walking to a garbage state.
And that's why people have such different views on agentic software development, some work on codebases that are better represented in the training data and so have great success using agentic tools on them, others work on software that isn't represented so well so AI does poorly on it. I don't think it's an issue with quality management, from my own experiments no amount of hand-written rules or system prompts will keep AI from destroying a codebase for which it doesn't have a strong idea how the code is supposed to look from its own training data in the first place. As another experiment, try giving AI strict rules about how to change code or introduce new features, it will always find a way around them or appropriate them in a maliciously funny way that you haven't anticipated. That's also an artefact of the training process, these systems aren't designed to say no or do nothing, they produce outputs to achieve goals and they will bend your rules to the greatest amount possible if it helps with goal fulfilment.
I don't mind this, but this is not how this is being sold at all, and many folks use these tools to be lazy.
Software quality has been a solved issue in many realms of the digital industry - for decades. There are countless examples of high quality software producing the certainty and safety required to properly ship products.
The way you do it properly: review, review, review. Not just once, not just twice - but on a continual basis.
Take for example, the issue with safety systems engineering, SIL-4. You identify your requirements through analysis, you write your specs, you then write the tests that will prove the specs, and then you write the code. You apply the tests to the code to confirm that the code delivers on the specs.
But, you know what else you do? You do code coverage testing - meaning you don’t ship a single damn line of code that hasn’t been tested. This doesn’t guarantee that the code is correct, or ‘high quality’ - it does however prevent you from shipping untested code.
Then, you pass a review. Code quality reviews usually involve multiple-eyes-on-the-codebase sessions, where a diverse set of engineers read the code, line by line. It is evaluated on the basis of conformance to stringent, well defined coding rules and standards. Anything that doesn’t pass - goes back for analysis, specs, tests, coding, and then again .. the exact same review.
Then, you ship the code. But for safety systems you also have portions of the system that are there to do online tests - to ensure that the code is functioning on the hardware it is running on, as intended. In some cases these online tests run within a boundary of 10 milliseconds, or even less, shutting everything down within that time frame if something is unexpected - cosmic rays happen, bits get flipped, etc.
That’s a loose, generalization of the situation - but it describes the review, review, review process. Review is a constant, it is not a fixed frame - it is done on multiple frames.
To do code quality, one must be willing to check oneself before one wrecks oneself. Always. Constantly. Without fail, without hubris (there is an enormous amount of hubris in the software world), with humility and responsibility.
AI must be taught the same workflow by humans, enforcing it. If you vibe code some junk code and ship it - you failed to review it. Yes, that’s a lot of code to review that you just produce in an hour and a few tens of thousands of tokens. So? Fucking review it, kids.
There will be models that take this seriously. Use them to do the review. Review the review.
The human attention span must be applied to this review with as much rigor and autonomy - and, very important: agency - as possible. Human attention spans must, in a cyclic fashion, come as close to the actual clock cycles driving the software as possible.
Where you have a code quality issue in an AI-driven project, it is because the cycle of human attention to review and the cycles of the software system itself, are out of sync, not in harmony, and indeed in conflict with each other. Managers must learn to identify when that happens, and immediately add more review.
Too many times, arrogance and hubris ship faulty, buggy code - “it works on my machine!” - but there are countless examples in the pre-AI timeline which demonstrate how human arrogance and hubris are managed, cyclically, in a process designed specifically to erase it from the equation.
You are responsible for the code your AI generates for you. No, the cyclomatic complexity is not an excuse to ignore that responsibility. It is a duty - and the developers who will survive the AI onslaught are the ones who understand that responsibility. Same as it ever was.
And technical quality gates do not help if the human side lacks defense against slop code. If you don't have the right managers in place, the 2 years of experience vibecoder who ships a feature in 4 hours will always win against the 20+ year senior who actually looks at the code he is about to ship.