[trhway]

alternatively the code can go the way of "fast fashion" and even "3d-print your garments in the morning according to your feelings and weather and recycle at the end of the day".

If dealing with a functionality that is splittable into microfeatures/microservices, then anything that you need right now can potentially be vibe-coded, even on the fly (and deleted afterwards). Single-use code.

>But as time goes on your codebase has to mature, or else you end up using more and more resources on maintenance rather than innovation.

tremendous resource sink in enterprise software. Solving it, even if making it just avoidable - may be Anthropic goes that way and leads the others - would be a huge revolution.

[otabdeveloper4]

> microfeatures/microservices

Have you seen the code generated by AI? These things converge on the "1 million lines to make an API call" pattern. They're a lot of things, but certainly not "micro".

[ezst]

I can totally wrap my head around that, and it's an interesting thought experiment, though:

- building functionalities as components that are swappable on a whim requires a level of careful thought, abstraction and architecture that essentially is the exact opposite to ai slop

- in this day and age we still don't make software for the sake of it, and who's financing it doesn't generally require such levels of functional flexibility (the physical world commandeering the coding isn't nearly as volatile as to justify that)

- this comes loaded with the implication that "stuff needs to work": if you are developing software that manages inventory, orders, resources, ... you just can't take the chance to corrupt your customers data or disrupt their business processes. Shipping faster than you can test and with no accountability and no oversight is a solution to a problem I've personally never encountered in the wild

[trhway]

>- building functionalities as components that are swappable on a whim requires a level of careful thought, abstraction and architecture that essentially is the exact opposite to ai slop

that is only for humans really. Why we need these careful thought, abstraction and architecture? Because otherwise the required code becomes an unmanageable pile of spaghetti handling myriad of edge cases of abstraction leaks and unexpected side effects. Human brain can't manage it. AI can or at least soon would be able to. It will just be a large pile of AI slop.

It may also happen that AI will also start generate good component based architecture if forced to minimize or in some other measurable way improve its slop.

[ezst]

> Why we need these careful thought, abstraction and architecture?

your answer focused on maintainability, but you are overlooking what I think is the bigger problem: those components will eventually interact with one another (technically, by nature of living in the same code tree, sharing the same storage backend, framework, common libraries, …, or logically, by referencing the same entities for slightly different and complementary features). With that comes the need to centrally control what they should/can/cannot do. There is no shortcut to having to clarify (with your customer) and formally document what those layered interactions are, or, before you know it, you have multiple incompatible user access controls, row-level access policies, competing master/reference data, or different parts of the application interpreting differently the same data.

It's a pretty bad value proposition, if you ask me, to have to do so much hand-holding for a result that comes with no guarantees whatsoever (you will never know the extent of which your clean spec "made it in").