> Like OK someone vibecoded an FPS in COBOL or Pokémon emerald in a web browser with web assembly? Ok good for them, piss off karma farmer.

Sorry, but most of these discussions reek of extreme gatekeeping. First off, neither of these things are impossibly difficult and are easily doable with some dedication by hand. LLMs simply accelerate the process, the human still has to come up with the architecture, _idea_ and plan to do something like this.

It's only cool if it's in written in brainfuck via pencil and paper.

Bonus points if it's ink on paper.

Bonus points if ink and paper are hand crafted by the creator rather than the filthy casuals that rely on paper mills to make their paper for them.

Made me laugh. Thanks :)

I think what we’re seeing play out in this thread is the devaluation of software engineers. If a growing number of people have the sentiment that an engineer vibecoding an idea has less value than a human doing it then that is all that will matter in the end.

That’s the inevitable result of machines being invented that can largely do our jobs. Just like how artisanal products are often prized over factory productions. The effort put in to and the organic quality of products have pretty much always been of value to consumers and appraisers. “I clicked a few buttons and look what the machine produced” will never be as impressive.

> If a growing number of people have the sentiment that an engineer vibecoding an idea has less value than a human doing it then that is all that will matter in the end.

Because if you put them on balance that will be the truth.

If an “artist” comes up with ideas for some artwork then just prompts it out with an LLM I am similarly not impressed, and never will be, even if the image looks cool. It’s a cool image, not an impressive effort. That’s all these code projects are. Shiny objects.

> It's not impressive that Claude wrote it, it was impressive if you have written it, OP.

Do you have evidence that it's Claude written? Looking through the source it isn't clear to me, at all. Plus, even if it _was_ Claude/LLM assisted, why does that take away from the project?

> why does that take away from the project?

It's like being offered a big mac at a fine dining restaurant. Yes, big mac is gonna taste fine, maybe you can dress it up nicely even. But the restaurant didn't make it, and you feel cheated for buying it (and in this case, wasting your time thinking someone coded it).

Something just existing isn't the same as something being made by someone with passion and effort beyond a one-shot prompt to Fable 5.

Please remember to thank Chef Mike

So a mixer and an oven? Or does that not count because it’s 2 buttons to bake something?

I disagree.

> why does that take away from the project?

Because it is process that matters, in such projects, not the outcome. E.g. it is fascinating how one manages to port and run Doom on some microwave led screen... But nobody is going to play it eventually, it is not relevant as the "end product".

You have to remember that this forum is for people who have a passion and an intellectual interest in coding and development, and discussing such with like-minded people. Stimulating intellectual curiosity. An interest in what humans think and do is an implicit part of the experience.

An engineer vibe-coding a project generates an end product, yes, but what is there to be interested in or to discuss? Chances are said engineer isn't even capable of discussing the project in any depth. Are we going to be left discussing nothing but prompts and Claude workflows, and how we got the black box to do a thing? OK. Who cares? I guess we can all politely clap and move on.

I don't know if the posted project was written by an LLM or a human, but I have to agree with localhoster than AI has sucked a lot of the joy out of a lot of HN.

How this isn't causing an existential crisis in fellow developers, I don't understand. We're seeing our craft dissolve day by day, to the point where even our forums are filled with AI generated crap that we just don't find interesting or engaging.

It is. People have posted threads about how they hate that AI has sucked all of the joy and fun out of their work, and they can feel it rotting their brains, but they just can't not use it. Either because their employers require it or because the compulsion to minmax and optimize their "productivity" overrides all. The dialogue they have with themselves and with HN is a lot like the dialogue someone has questioning the tenets of their own religion.

Aside from that, I don't want to take responsibility for that which I don't understand. And even if I can read the code generated by a LLM, that's not the same as thinking through a solution or planning a design.

You can't call yourself an "engineer" if you just open Claude or Codex and hit "Y" on the keyboard to every prompt like that dipping flamingo when Homer Simpson took the wfh job (Simpsons predicted it).

I am facing that very dilemma. I lean more to the anti-AI side, I don't want to get my skills atrophied by relying on it, but I recognize its potential productivity boosts as tempting to use.

> An engineer vibe-coding a project generates an end product, yes, but what is there to be interested in or to discuss? Chances are said engineer isn't even capable of discussing the project in any depth.

And this is reductive to the point of absurdity.

Everybody screaming about AI forgets the fact... you STILL need the domain knowledge. That's where the value in engineering is now.

Imagine a wanna-be game designer thinking they can fire up codex or claude and even with a few weeks and a few hundred dollars in credit, coming out the other side with a game anybody would want to play.

That's not how it works.

I tried with godot. I can tell you everything you want to know about programming/networking/DevOps, and daily use that knowledge. But was very very quickly overwhelmed with the things I DON'T know about game design and development when I tried to develop retro-DQ clone in space.

And yeah, it didn't work.

https://i.imgur.com/hyXQEyA.png

Meaningless and easily bypassable. Will actually try coding up a tensor library with it, see if it sabotages anything.

They said in their terms and conditions they will silently sabotage you if you do this.

easily ?

If the claimed capabilities are true, Fable 5 is already at a superhuman level. We might see genuine unprecedented leaps in technology now, across all fields.

yees, any second now!

the leap here is browser extensions appearing to block all mentions of ai across the web

and that's a good thing

I'm actually working on something similar to this. Basically works as an additional preprocessed layer over C++. You can get some crazy results, but it's tricky to integrate with existing build tools without causing havoc.

> void DoSomething(const void* p, size_t numBytes)

would be something like

template <typename T> void DoSomething (const T& ref) or void DoSomething(const T& ref, size_t numBytes) or C++20-y void DoSomething (const auto& ref)

If the class you're passing in already qualifies a size like member fn, template<typename T> requires requires(T t){ t.size(); } void DoSomething(const T& x){ ... x.size(); }

> void DoSomething(const uint8_t* p, size_t numBytes)

This is awful you lose type info irreversibly.

> template <typename T> void DoSomething(std::span<T> data)

You can do this but the above examples work just as well.

> Or maybe something even more complicated, like this?

template <typename T, std::size_t N> void DoSomething(std::span<T, N> data)

// Or this? template <typename T, std::size_t N> void DoSomething(std::span<const T, N> data)

This is more explicit, not more complicated...

> In this way, we still keep the clarity and simplicity of the function invocation: > DoSomething(&data, sizeof(data));

Stripping types is not a good idea, especially because you'll run into object lifetime issues _REALLY QUICKLY_. You need to guarantee that the object is trivially copyable.

Very nice, fairly efficient too.

I don't like the explicit split of Newtonian and relativistic gravity, this is often how it's presented in educational content, but it creates too much confusion; for instance it gives the illusion that they are somehow separate theories even though Newtonian gravity is a limiting case of Einsteinian gravity when v << c and gravitational fields are weak (see Poissons eq for Newtons gravitational potential.

Lastly, you should consider rendering spacetime similar to Alessandro Roussels spacetime visualization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwgIjBUYVc; probably the best and most innovative one I've seen.

Well, this is not the first project that has this. Depending what llm/harness and how it is yielded, this happens, a lot. How often have you had Opus 4.x note; ‘485 failed tests, but those are not related to my changes so I will not dive into them’? You believe someone who does not know about tests or code or linting or compilers will push back on that? I know that’s not happening for a fact.

>If you want your project linted/formatted a certain way make it clear to the LLM.

Most people have no clue what that means. Most Devs should know but I would wager that newer devs don't have enough opinion or exposure to do that.

I have approx 40GB of docker containers spun up at any time in order to run the app I work on, and it only seems to get hungrier by the day. I have absolutely 0 problems imagining a single unoptimized Next app needing multiple gigs just to run, yet alone compile.

Linting is also trivial for LLMs. I’d argue linting is one of the easiest and best use cases for coding assistants.

This story doesn’t add up.

The person running the Ai needs to know to set up linting in the first place and have it be applied. It's not a default.

Ive had ai make code that doesn't pass a linter and make code look like hand aligned code.

Shameless plug - I've been working on a general repo linting tool alint [0], which helps keep a repo cleanly structured and hygienic - essentially a linter for everything in a repo that a language-specific linter doesn't cover. It also has some considerations for integrating/playing nicely with agentic coding [1]. This started as a replacement to a bunch of scripts I had in repos that did similar things - but more cohesive, readable and much faster.

[0] https://github.com/asamarts/alint

[1] https://alint.org/agent-friendly-linter/

You'd have to know what a linter is and tell the LLM to set it up though, right? Or just get lucky and have it suggest setting it up/set one up without asking.

The OP said that this was coded by a product person though. The product people coding and using these tools, who are spreading the pro-LLM propaganda, are not doing proper prompt engineering nor lint fixing.

> _no_ LLM will _ever_ generate that

Did you even read the post? Seems you are being overly hostile, defensive and dismissive. Honestly, you sound like an astroturfer to me. I'm curious to check your history to see if you match the vibe.

Oh sweet summer child...

Do you have any idea, even before modern LLMs, how much code out there was just given more memory instead of optimized? There are even good reasons for it (it can be cheaper than having devs spend time if there's more productive work to be had).

It can be very easy if said code needs to parse through gobs of data.

> No project "needs 10GB" to compile

You've never tried to compile NextJS slop, have you? It absolutely can take that much. All those junkdevs have 64GB in their MBPs for a reason. NodeJS max heap is now dynamic because of this.

This makes no sense. Market cap and cash reserves are two different stats for a reason. Why would they need to be the same? Just to make things simpler for people who don't actually know what market cap means? (Which, granted, is the vast majority of people.)

This makes no sense: the whole point is to raise capital. The valuation is never just the current value of the assets; it’s based on the expected future cash flows. A good example is in biotech, some researcher developed a treatment and wants to develop a product. They have valuable IP but zero money. So they IPO to raise capital to bring the treatment to market. The investors expect that in the future, they will get dividends or a buyout.

If a company that wanted to IPO had 1 trillion dollars, their market cap would have to be larger than their cash holding. Their cash on hand is considered or at least should be considered in any normal valuation of the company. Because shares are ownership of the company.

So a simple valuation would be something like Current Cash + Assets + Expected Future cash - (Expenses + Risk)

Where would a company ever get their market cap in cash? If they had that, wouldn’t they by definition have a higher market cap, since the value of the company is cash + the rest of the company?

> since the value of the company is cash + the rest of the company?

Failing companies sometimes trade below cash value. OP's basically creating a rule by which only failing companies are allowed to go public. (Or those who have paid a king's ransom to a megabank.)

Companies always trade at a premium to book, so how would that work?

Last year Chegg was trading below net cash (meaning their market cap was smaller than cash in the bank minus debt). Might still be, I haven't checked in a while. There were maybe a hundred on the Tokyo stock exchange trading below net cash.

Some companies trade at a discount to book value (very normal for banks, for example, especially those from e.g. Pakistan).

In theory the purpose of an IPO is to raise cash to expand a company. If the company already has the cash they don't need to do an IPO.

the marketcap represents the cashflow estimated by the market to be taken out of the business over the lifetime of the company discounted today.

your suggestion makes no sense

...what?

> Git is open source/public domain. Trademarks don't apply to it.

Public domain and open source are two completely unrelated concepts. If open source were public domain, you could not license usage of it (MIT, GPL, etc.). What is the point of confidently asserting something you're completely ignorant about as though it were factual?

That’s not right. You can very much apply trademarks to open-source software. See for example Mozilla Firefox. Also, open-source and public domain are not the same thing. Finally, git is GPL.