[hombre_fatal]

> This sounds like someone who have never had to write serious software.

Why the insult? You never know who you're talking to on HN.

Your points have to do with process failure, not intractable LLM limitations. Most of which already apply to human-conceived software.

Your "Performance Optimizations" bit exemplifies this since you baked in the assumption that it will have no connection with your project. Well, why not? You need to figure out how to use your source code and relevant data as ground truth when working with LLMs.

A markdown viewer is on the simpler side of things I've built with LLMs, so this too suggests that you have a weak process. A common mistake is to expect LLMs to one-shot everything (the spec, the plan, or the actual impl). Instead you should use LLMs to review-revise-cycle one of those until it's refined, ideally the spec/plan since impl is derived from it. You will have much better and consistent results.

I recommend finding an engineer you respect/trust that has found a way to build good software with LLMs, and then tap them for their process.

[prmph]

Thanks for your response. I did not mean to insult; my mild jab was meant to draw attention to the idea that using LLMs for serious production software is a whole different game than using them for casual software.

You said > Your "Performance Optimizations" bit exemplifies this since you baked in the assumption that it will have no connection with your project. Well, why not?

OK, I am talking from experience. Using LLMs for speccing is almost useless above certain complexity levels; what you get is an assemblage of the most average points you can imagine, the kinds of things almost every project in the category you are working on will address without any thought. Ask it to spec auth for a specific design, and all you'll get is: cookie-based login, input validation, password hashing, etc, etc. Which you don't need an LLM for. Nothing like an actual in-depth design. Even asking them to update specs based on discussions is hit or miss.

> A markdown viewer is on the simpler side of things I've built with LLMs, so this too suggests that you have a weak process. A common mistake is to expect LLMs to one-shot everything (the spec, the plan, or the actual impl). Instead you should use LLMs to review-revise-cycle one of those until it's refined, ideally the spec/plan since impl is derived from it. You will have much better and consistent results.

But what you are describing is NOT vibe-coding. I have no doubt I could build the viewer I want (which by the way is not your usual plain vanilla markdown viewer, but one with some very specific features) with LLM assistance. My point is: if you can't even vibe code your way to this specific viewer, how are you supposed to vibe code serious software?

Indeed, the declining quality of Claude Code is, I suspect, testament to the fact that vibe-coding any sufficienly complex piece of software does not work in the long run.

[hombre_fatal]

Oh, I see. I'll grant whatever you take vibe-code to mean since that seems to be the hang-up -- vibe-code prob suggests there's no process at all.

My point is that the planning phase and implementing phase are basically unsupervised, and all the work goes into the planning phase.

Yet I've noticed that over time, I'm not even needed in the planning phase because a simple revision loop on a plan file produces a really good plan. My role is mostly to decide what the agents should do next and driving the revision loop by hand (mostly because it's the best place for me to follow what's happening).

I've been getting really good results, though I've also developed a simple process that ensures that LLMs aren't relying on their model but rather external resources which is critical.