[bdangubic]

it absolutely doesn’t. most software is shitty and buggy. I know, have seen 30 years worth of it. just now we can write the shitty and buggy a lot faster.

ask anyone that has been in the industry for awhile and they will tell you the same thing. a lot of crowd on HN write as if human-written code is any good and while there are always exception, on average, most software is shitty. if I had a dollar for every time I met someone writing software for “X” saying “dude, if you knew what I know you’d never use/do/… X” I’d be a very rich man

[lelanthran]

Most software may be shitty, but users absolutely are not prepared for the level of shittiness we see in vibed projects.

That's what I'm saying: users are used to a certain level of reliability. They might not be so accepting of a decline.

[bdangubic]

example? or this is theoretical?

[lelanthran]

So many, so numerous examples.

But, lets start with the C compiler written by an AI, guided by the comp[any that sells the AI. Do you really think that the average user is eady yet to accept that sort of degradation in quality?

[bdangubic]

C compiler written by AI is used somewhere to compile production code?

[lelanthran]

> C compiler written by AI is used somewhere to compile production code?

That's the point - it isn't used; the quality is too poor to even replace tcc.

[bdangubic]

> They'd revolt en-masse if their…

who is revolting? still waiting for an example of this ficticious, unfortunately often-cited fantasy… if the example is C compiler no one uses (no one even spent serious time trying to make it work either) the bar is waaaay to low for your line of thinking IMHO