this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
877 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

75634 readers
3028 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"No Duh," say senior developers everywhere.

The article explains that vibe code often is close, but not quite, functional, requiring developers to go in and find where the problems are - resulting in a net slowdown of development rather than productivity gains.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 17 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

I code with LLMs every day as a senior developer but agents are mostly a big lie. LLMs are great for information index and rubber duck chats which already is incredible feaute of the century but agents are fundamentally bad. Even for Python they are intern-level bad. I was just trying the new Claude and instead of using Python's pathlib.Path it reinvented its own file system path utils and pathlib is not even some new Python feature - it has been de facto way to manage paths for at least 3 years now.

That being said when prompted in great detail with exact instructions agents can be useful but thats not what being sold here.

After so many iterations it seems like agents need a fundamental breakthrough in AI tech is still needed as diminishing returns is going hard now.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

I will concur with the whole 'llm keeps suggesting to reinvent the wheel'

And poorly. Not only did it not use a pretty basic standard library to do something, it's implementation is generally crap. For example it offered up a solution that was hard coded to IPv4, and the context was very ipv6 heavy

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 39 seconds ago

I have a theory that it's partly because a bunch of older StackOverflow answers have more votes than newer ones using new features. More referring to not using relatively new features as much as it should.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour ago

If it wasn't for all the AI hype that it's going to do everyone's job, LLMs would be widely considered an amazing advancement in computer-human interaction and human assistance. They are so much better than using a search engine to parse web forums and stack overflow, but that's not going to pay for investing hundreds of billions into building them out. My experience is like yours - I use AI chat as a huge information index mainly, and helpful sounding board occasionally, but it isn't much good beyond that.

[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Oh yes. The Great pathlib. The Blessed pathlib. Hallowed be it and all it does.

I'm a Ruby girl. A couple of years ago I was super worried about my decision to finally start learning Python seriously. But once I ran into pathlib, I knew for sure that everything will be fine. Take an everyday headache problem. Solve it forever. Boom. This is how standard libraries should be designed.

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 1 points 54 minutes ago

Pathlib is very nice indeed, but I can understand why a lot of languages don't do similar things. There are major challenges implementing something like that. Cross-platform functionality is a big one, for example. File permissions between Unix systems and Windows do not map perfectly from one system to another which can be a maintenance burden.

But I do agree. As a user, it feels great to have. And yes, also in general, the things Python does with its standard library are definitely the way things should be done, from a user's point of view at least.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 hours ago

I disagree. Take a routine problem and invent a new language for it. Then split it into various incompatible dialects, and make sure in all cases it requires computing power that no one really has.