[unclebucknasty]

>a strong and thorough idea of what you want, broken up into hundreds of smaller problems, with specific architectural steers on the really critical pieces.

Serious question: at what point is it easier to just write the code?

[kenjackson]

Depends. If you have written other Tower Defense games then it’s probably really close to that line. If you just took a CS class in high school then this vibe approach is probably 20x faster.

My aunt would always tell me that making fresh pasta or grounding your own meat was basically just as fast as buying it. And while it may have have been true for her it definitely wasn’t for me.

[skydhash]

And if it's a work project, you're going to spend a few years working on the same tech. So by the time you're done, there's going to be templates, snippets,... that you can quickly reuse for any prototyping with the tech. You would be faster by the fact that you know that it's correct and you don't have to review it. Helps greatly with mental load. I remember initializing a project in React by lifting whole modules out of an old one. Those modules could have been libraries the way they were coded.

[unclebucknasty]

All of this, and highlighting this part:

>You would be faster by the fact that you know that it's correct and you don't have to review it. Helps greatly with mental load.

I keep thinking maybe it's me who's just not getting the vibe coding hype. Or maybe my writing vs reading code efficiency is skewed towards writing more than most people's. Because the idea of validating and fixing code vs just writing it doesn't feel efficient or quality-oriented.

Then, there's the idea that it will suddenly break code that previously worked.

Overall, I keep hearing people advocating for providing the AI more details, new approaches/processes/etc. to try to get the right output. It makes me wonder if things might be coming full circle. I mean, there has to be some point where it's better to just write the code and be done with it.