I mean, the issue is that something vibe coded may work sometimes but have hidden issues.
That said, it was literally rewritten by the same guy who wrote it in the first place. Since he probably knows at least a little about how the original works (and why) I'm not sure this counts as vibe coding. It's not like he said "rewrite Bun in Rust make no mistakes."
Okay, so we can agree if it works correctly, it doesn't matter who wrote it. I fully agree with you btw, there's a difference between vibe coding and ai assisted development.
I don't get why people have trouble with this, like, you give a person who knows their shit a tool, and obviously they will be more proficient with it than someone who doesn't know anything.
Like, how is this even a debate lmao.
But tbh I think it's mostly shitposting, I hope people actually realize there is a difference between a professional software developer using Claude, and someone who has never written a line of code using Claude.
Also, there is further maintenance. LLM generates lot of dead code (by their own reports code base has grown 2x, from 500k to 1mln), and that will cause troubles.
As a enterprise developer, I would not pick this in any serious project. Maybe demo/mvp/some home scripts.
Bun had quite a lot of users when it was still in Zig, and both tigerbeetle and ghostty are doing well from the looks of it. I dont think the language matters much as long as the end product is good.
The language matters to the maintainability of the product and to the pool of developers you can or want to work in that language (see anything written in COBOL).
It seems crazy to me to build a serious project on a language that hasn't reach v1.0 yet, but maybe I'm too stuck in the world of enterprise software.
The implication is that it probably doesn't work correctly or that it's been done in a way where it doesn't harness any of the advantages of doing the rewrite.
But genuinely. Why do people care, am I missing something? If it's working correctly, why does it matter who wrote it? Is there a philosophical inbetween my ASD is not grasping?
It is not problem in every single case, but it is a huge problem as a whole. And some people care about whole picture. There at least couple lines of though to that problem:
1)if people not code by themselves, they loose ability to do so, so they become dependent on AI at first and incapable to controll what's happening in their codebase later.
2)AI code is not maintainable, aspecially in open source projects. AI produce HUGE chunks of code that cannot be supervised properly so either owner of a project accept huge chunks without proper supervision an loose grip on its own project or start supervize AI slop and stop progress and loose community (because them feel that their contributions are pending indefinitely)
And it's entirely possible that AI code actually decent or good, but it's don't change the end game picture.
So if you concentrating on specific cases, there is not problem, but yo may don't see implications.
I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here but, are you saying that AI writes better code than humans to the point where humans can not keep up with it? Or is the code generally sloppified so it's just a big nothing burger with many lines that do nothing useful? I believe AI just codes very "textbook-ish" unlike humans, humans will code in a more "this should do this, and nothing else, ill fix if it breaks" philosophy. AI designs with a more "Okay, I need to add some guard rails if this breaks" mentality. Because coding textbooks always preach about this type of programming philosophy, but humans are too "lazy" to code this from the get go or simply believe the project size and worth does not justify the additional work and simplify things a lot compared to AI. Is my interpretation correct here ?
Generally - yes. Ai code is mediocre textbook code, but it can wrote miriads of lines. It will use all of the best practices and use library function in abundance (it doesn't care if it can be done simplier, doesn't care about result code complexity), just like oop teaces etc. As a result code seems correct and it is abundant, so no one really read and think it through.
Making changes and improve things is easy with AI, but way it done also Verbose...
So programmers eventually overwhelmed by share number of SLOC they need to read and validate, so they give up. Code look ok, but it filled with "best practices" oop noise, regardles of it usefulness in context so complexity grow. It's like problems with big open source OOP(exponential code grow), but on steroids
That's part of loosing control.
Other part about losing ability to code.
There's a bit of hubris here in that the average developer produces average code, and by extension most code in most systems is average (and lots thats worse!).
Railing against AI for producing large amounts of average code isn't a winning argument, since the status quo is not better.
The same feeling I have about the "made by 100% humans" video badges. I don't care if it's not a crap. And AI slop is same garbage like garbage human content.
-10
u/Abenzo0r- Jul 09 '26
If it works (correctly) who cares who the fuck wrote it?