Top
Best
New

Posted by lumpa 1 day ago

A year of vibes(lucumr.pocoo.org)
184 points | 118 commentspage 2
bigfishrunning 12 hours ago|
> My biggest unexpected finding: we’re hitting limits of traditional tools for sharing code. The pull request model on GitHub doesn’t carry enough information to review AI generated code properly — I wish I could see the prompts that led to changes. It’s not just GitHub, it’s also git that is lacking.

I find when submitting a complex PR, i tend to do a self review, adding another layer of comments above those that are included in the code. Seems like a nice place to stuff prompts

theptip 22 hours ago||
A really interesting point that keeps coming up in discussions about LLMs is “what trade-offs need to be re-evaluated”

> I also believe that observability is up for grabs again. We now have both the need and opportunity to take advantage of it on a whole new level. Most people were not in a position where they could build their own eBPF programs, but LLMs can

One of my big predictions for ‘26 is the industry following through with this line of reasoning. It’s now possible to quickly code up OSS projects of much higher utility and depth.

LLMs are already great at Unix tools; a small api and codebase that does something interesting.

I think we’ll see an explosion of small tools (and Skills wrapping their use) for more sophisticated roles like DevOps, and meta-Skills for how to build your own skill bundles for your internal systems and architecture.

And perhaps more ambitiously, I think services like Datadog will need to change their APIs or risk being disrupted; in the short term nobody is going to be able to move fast enough inside a walled garden to keep up with the velocity the Claude + Unix tools will provide.

UI tooling is nice, but it’s not optimized for agents.

shimman 21 hours ago|
Do you have any example repos of these OSS projects? I'm being reminded of this post every time people keep extolling how "productive" LLMs are:

https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware...

Where is the resulting software?

pigpop 18 hours ago|||
Here you go https://ampcode.com/news/social-coding
shimman 15 hours ago||
I don't think using an AI company that relies on selling AI solutions to make money as a unbiased source of info, but what do I know? I'm not a VC investor and skeptical of the rich + elites in general.

Usually the best rule of thumb is to be against anything these people are for.

pigpop 15 hours ago||
Do you want me to link you directly to the repos and threads on that page, I can if you can't find them.
shimman 12 hours ago||
No, I'm good. I do find it telling they don't list one of the more public LLM adoptions being forced fed to MSFT workers:

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/115762

pigpop 1 hour ago||
Ok, I can see why they wouldn't list a copilot related stuff since that page is just providing a list of public Amp threads, some of which have public repos. Copilot is a different framework so you wouldn't find it on that page. I linked to the Amp threads because you can see both the conversation as well as the repo for those that include one.
adamisom 21 hours ago|||
>Where is the resulting software?

Everywhere.

Remember Satya Nadella estimating 30% of code at Microsoft was written by AI? That was March. At this point it's ubiquitous—and invisible.

bonzini 20 hours ago||
> Everywhere.

Show the PRs.

rootnod3 23 hours ago||
"I have seen some people be quite successful with this."

Wait until those people hit a snafu and have to debug something in prod after they mindlessly handed their brains and critical thinking to a water-wasting behemoth and atrophied their minds.

EDIT: typo, and yes I see the irony :D

comex 22 hours ago||
Just be glad that there remains a concrete benefit to not atrophying your mind and deeply understanding your code. For now. In the long run, I suspect the behemoth will become just as capable at debugging and dealing with complexity as humans. At that point, human involvement in the actual code will be pointless, and the only remaining human skill needed will be properly directing the agents – the skill those people are learning right now.

(I don’t relish this future at all, myself, but I’m starting to think it really will happen soon.)

rootnod3 14 hours ago||
The only future I see is that prompts will become so refined that you give them all the requirements an they write the code for ya. And that prompt language has to be unambiguous and so detailed that you loop around and re-invented a programming language, just this time it wastes tons of water.
wiseowise 22 hours ago||
> Wait until those people hit a snafu and have to debug something in prod after they mindlessly handed their brains and critical thinking to a water-wasting behemoth and atrophied their minds.

You've just described typical run of the mill company that has software. LLMs will make it easier to shoot yourself in the foot, but let's not rewrite history as if stackoverflow coders are not a thing.

rootnod3 22 hours ago|||
Difference: companies are not pushing their employees to use stack overflow. Stack overflow doesn't waste massive amounts of water and energy. Stack overflow does not easily abuse millions of copyrights in a second by scraping without permission.
rootnod3 22 hours ago|||
Another difference: stack overflow tells you you are wrong or tells you and do your own research or to read the manual (which in a high percentage of cases is the right answer). It doesn't tell you that you are right and proceeds to hallucinate some non-existent flags for some command invocation.
pigpop 18 hours ago|||
This is a problem but it's a known one which both Google and Anthropic seem to be making progress towards solving. I've had a full on argument with Gemini 3 where it turned out I was wrong and it correctly stuck to its guns and wouldn't let me convince it otherwise. It eventually got through to me about the mistake I made and I learned something useful from it. Sonnet and Opus are still a bit too happy to tell you "you're absolutely right" but I've noticed more pushback creeping in in the right places. It's a tough balance to get right, nobody wants to pay for a service that just tells them "no" whenever they want to try something silly or unconventional.
christophilus 20 hours ago|||
It mostly incorrectly flags your question as a dup.
tjr 21 hours ago|||
There have been lots of tools and resources that have promised (and delivered!) increased programming productivity.

Individual results may vary, but it seems credible that thoroughly learning and using an editor like Vim or Emacs could yield a 2x productivity boost. For the most part, this has never really been pushed. If a programmer wanted to use Nano (or Notepad!), some may have found that odd, but nobody really cared. Use whatever editor you like. Even if it means leaving a 2x productivity boost on the table!

Why is it being pushed so hard that AI coding tools in particular must be used?

rootnod3 22 hours ago|||
I am not contesting that stackoverflow isn't bad in many regards, but to equate that to massive PRs or code changes done via AI slop is a different level. At worst, you might get a page or two out of stack overflow but still need to stitch it together yourself.

With LLMs you can literally ask it to generate entire libraries without activating a single neuron in your nogging. Those two do NOT compare in the slightest.

rootnod3 23 hours ago||
Sorry, but why would including the prompt in the pull request make any difference? Explain what you DID in the pull request. If you can't summarize it yourself, it means you didn't review it yourself, so why should I have to do it for you?
theshrike79 16 hours ago|
You're making assumptions, of course you add BOTH.

The point of adding the "prompt", or the discussion with the LLM is learning. You can go back and see what was the exact conversation.

rootnod3 14 hours ago||
Sounds more like just adding a ton of wasted time for the reviewer to read through those discussions. At least summarize it yourself, e.g. "After discovering manpage XYZ, it became clear that the correct usage of this function is fooBar()".
theshrike79 7 hours ago||
Why would the reviewer need to read through discussions? The description + code should be just fine.

It's like having someone watch a livestream screen recording of you writing the code.

It's nice to have there IF you need to go back and learn something, but hardly a review requirement.

summarity 22 hours ago||
Here’s something else that just started to rally work this year with Opus 4.5: interacting with Ghidra. Nearly every binary is now suddenly transparent, in many cases it can navigate binaries better than source code itself.

There’s even a research team that has bee using this approach to generate compilable C++ from binaries and run static analysis on it, to find more vulnerabilities than source analysis without involving dynamic tracing.

petcat 16 hours ago||
I respect Armin's opinions on the state-of-the-art in programming a lot. I'm wondering if he finds that "vibe coding" (or vibe engineering) is particularly pleasant and effective in Rust compared to, say, Python.
johnwheeler 16 hours ago|
I bet it would be probably even nicer. I've been programming DSP in C++ with JUCE. I have a very rusty C++ experience from years ago, but it's getting me through a lot of it, and I feel pretty comfortable. Maybe my ignorance is bliss, and I'm really just putting out bad shit.
adamisom 21 hours ago||
The very first thing I did vibe-coding was commit my prompts and AI responses. In Cursor that's extremely easy—just 'export' a chat. I stopped for security concerns but perhaps something like that is the way.
anshulbhide 22 hours ago||
> The pull request model on GitHub doesn’t carry enough information to review AI generated code properly — I wish I could see the prompts that led to changes. It’s not just GitHub, it’s also git that is lacking.

Yes! Who is building this?

amarant 22 hours ago|
Create a folder called "prompts". Create a new file for each prompt you make, name the time after timestamp. Or just append to prompts.txt

Either way, git will make it trivial to see which prompt belongs with which commit: it'll be in the same diff! You can write a pre-commit hook to always include the prompts in every commit, but I have a feeling most Vibe coders always commit with -a anyway

NitpickLawyer 20 hours ago||
It's not just that. There's a lot of (maybe useful) info that's lost without the entire session. And even if you include a jsonl of the entire session, just seeing that is not enough. It would be nice to be able to "click" at some point and add notes / edit / re-run from there w/ changes, etc.

Basically we're at a point where the agents kinda caught up to our tooling, and we need better / different UX or paradigms of sharing sessions (including context, choices, etc)

JKCalhoun 1 day ago||
Got distracted: love the "WebGL metaballs" header and footer on the site.
bgwalter 1 day ago|
It is nice that he speaks about some of the downsides as well.

In many respects 2025 was a lost year for programming. People speak about tools, setups and prompts instead of algorithms, applications and architecture.

People who are not convinced are forced to speak against the new bureaucratic madness in the same way that they are forced to speak against EU ChatControl.

I think 2025 was less productive, certainly for open source, except that enthusiasts now pay the Anthropic tax (to use the term that was previously used for Windows being preinstalled on machines).

r2_pilot 1 day ago||
>>"I think 2025 was less productive"

I think 2025 is more productive for me based on measurable metrics such as code contribution to my projects, better ability to ingest and act upon information, and generally I appreciate the Anthropic tax because Claude genuinely has been a step-change improvement in my life.

moooo99 21 hours ago||
> more productive for me based on measurable metrics such as code contribution to my projects

Isn‘t it generally agreed upon that counting contributions, LoC or similar metrics is a very bad way to gauge productivity?

theshrike79 16 hours ago|||
During 2025 I've almost exhausted my personal TODO-list of small applications and created a few extra ones.

This would've never happened without a Claude Pro (+ChatGPT) subscription.

And as I'm not American, none of them are aimed to be subscription based SaaS offerings, they're just simple CLI applications for my personal use. If someone else enjoys them, good for them. =)

r2_pilot 19 hours ago|||
I don't care about industry metrics when I'm building my own AI research robotics platform and it's doing what I ask it to do, proving itself in the real world far better than any performative best-practice theatrics in the service of risible MBA-grade effluvia masquerading as critical discourse.
JimDabell 1 day ago|||
> In many respects 2025 was a lost year for programming. People speak about tools, setups and prompts instead of algorithms, applications and architecture.

I think the opposite. Natural language is the most significant new programming language in years, and this year has had a tremendous amount of progress in collectively figuring out how to use this new programming language effectively.

9rx 22 hours ago||
> and this year has had a tremendous amount of progress in collectively figuring out how to use this new programming language effectively.

Hence the lost year. Instead of productively building things, we spent a lot of resources on trying to figure out how to build things.

data-ottawa 22 hours ago|||
Maybe it's because I'm a data scientist and not a dedicated programmer/engineer, but setup+tooling gains this year have made 2025 a stellar year for me.

DS tooling feels like it hit much a needed 2.0 this year. Tools are faster, easier, more reliable, and more reproducible.

Polars+pyarrow+ibis have replaced most of my pandas usage. UDFs were the thing holding me back from these tools, this year polars hit the sweet spot there and it's been awesome to work with.

Marimo has made notebooks into apps. They're easier to deploy, and I can use anywidget+llms to build super interactive visualizations. I build a lot of internal tools on this stack now and it actually just works.

PyMC uses jax under the hood now, so my MCMC workflows are GPU accelerated.

All this tooling improvement means I can do more, faster, cheaper, and with higher quality.

I should probably write a blog post on this.

grim_io 1 day ago|||
I'm glad there has been a break in endless bikeshedding over TDD, OOP, ORM(partially) and similar.
sixtyj 1 day ago|||
Absolutely. So much noise.

"There’s an AI for that" lists 44,172 AI tools for 11,349 tasks. Most of them are probably just wrappers…

As Cory Doctorow uses enshittification for the internet, for AI/LLM there should be something like a dumbaification.

It reminds me late 90s when everything was "World Wide Web". :)

Gold rush it is.

theshrike79 16 hours ago||
This is just the Blockchain and Web3 (NTF) crazes all over again on the surface.

Every single grifter from those times is slapping AI on everything that moves or doesn't move.

But the difference is that the blockchain was (and still is) a solution looking for a problem. LLMs can solve actual problems today.

wiseowise 23 hours ago||
> algorithms, applications and architecture.

Which one is that? Endless leetcode madness? Or constant bikeshedding about today's flavor of MVC (MVI, MVVM, MVVMI) or whatever else bullshit people come up with instead of actually shipping?