• esa@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    no, my point is that “vibe coding” is explicitly about not using your head and just going by “vibes”. It’s innately an excuse for shit code, because you’re not supposed to look at the code at all.

    If you’re looking at the code and reviewing it, you’re not doing “vibe coding”.

    • chrash0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      i mean, i’ve done it. there’s always some sort of review process. and if the process is just “wrong, do it again” without examining any piece of it, you’re going to have a bad time producing anything of real value anyway

      • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        if the process is just “wrong, do it again” without examining any piece of it

        that’s the definition of vibe coding. It’s a process where you’re supposed to work as if you don’t know how to code and treat the code as magical mumbo-jumbo.

        • chrash0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          that’s your definition, sure. outputs absolutely have to be checked or the entire thing is objectively pointless, but it’s not. where you want to draw that line is a semantic argument i’m not interested in. but if you submit shit code to my repos and come to me saying, “oh i was vibe coding”, that’s a paddlin