[anonymous908213]

> If you get a programming system that sacrifices these and works better, people are going to use those.

Sure. That's a very large "if", though, one that evaluates to false and will continue evaluating to false for the foreseeable future. I am told over and over that I am being replaced and yet I have not seen one singular example of a real-world application of vibe coding that replaces existing software engineering. For starters, where is the vibe-coded replacement for Clang? For Linux? For IDEs? For browsers? I don't mean a concept of an idea of a browser, of course. To make the claim that the new programming system works better than the old system, it must produce something that is actually superior to what people currently use. LLMs are clearly completely and totally incapable of this. What they are capable of is making inferior software with a lower barrier to entry. Superior software is completely off the table, and it is why we don't see any existing software being replaced at scale, even though existing software absolutely has flaws and room for improvement that a "better programming system" would be able to seize upon if it existed.

That you can confidently assert that I am wrong, while having zero real-world evidence of superior software engineering produced by the new system, is indicative of a certain level of cultish thinking that is overtaking the world. Over and over and over again, people keep making these grand claims promising the world is changed, and yet there is no tangible presence of this in reality. You simply demand belief that it will change, as though LLMs are a new religion.

[fooker]

You are wrong about modern AI not being able to produce deterministic output for the for loop we are talking about.

You are right about modern AI producing superior software engineering.

You should read the chain of comments again and try to understand the non deterministic leaps of logic you have made :)

[anonymous908213]

> Storing prompts and contexts along with generated code is likely how we are going to be doing software engineering for a few decades

You specifically asserted that prompts would be the future of software engineering. If my memory is not mistaken, this was edited later to hedge with "likely" and did not include that when originally written?

[fooker]

> If my memory is not mistaken

Your memory is as impeccable as your logic :)

> asserted that prompts would be the future of software engineering.

That’s exactly not what I asserted. Can you find the critical difference?

[anonymous908213]

We'll have to leave it here then. I am fairly confident you edited the comment after the fact, but I cannot prove it, so further discussion is fruitless.