I think that Brian Hartgen's article is completely accurate, but so is the article here.
What he describes is not, repeat not, what "vibecoding" is generally like, and pretending that a prompt such as he suggests is at all characteristic of what gets used by the uninitiated is to ignore "the work product" accurately characterized as AI slop that I keep encountering.
Taylor Arndt gives a clear definition of what he (or she) means by Vibecoding: "It means building software by describing what you want in plain language and letting the AI write the code for you. You guide it by prompting and testing instead of reading every line yourself. In the fuller version of it, people do not read the code at all. If there is an error, they paste it back into the AI and it fixes it. They go off the vibes." That does not describe, at all, the process that Brian Hartgen is talking about nor is it what's being decried.
Most of us who are developers seen AI aided code generation as a small miracle of sorts, but we also do as Arndt states and, "I use AI to write my code, and then I actually review it, because I know what good looks like and I know what breaks." That is the critical piece that is missing, entirely, from vibecoding as clearly defined for the purposes of this article.
The uninitiated doing what is described by the vibecoding definition laid out above leads to slop far more often than not. AI assisted code generation with the result being reviewed by those who are in a position to refine and correct is is not vibecoding.
I think that Brian Hartgen's article is completely accurate, but so is the article here.
What he describes is not, repeat not, what "vibecoding" is generally like, and pretending that a prompt such as he suggests is at all characteristic of what gets used by the uninitiated is to ignore "the work product" accurately characterized as AI slop that I keep encountering.
Taylor Arndt gives a clear definition of what he (or she) means by Vibecoding: "It means building software by describing what you want in plain language and letting the AI write the code for you. You guide it by prompting and testing instead of reading every line yourself. In the fuller version of it, people do not read the code at all. If there is an error, they paste it back into the AI and it fixes it. They go off the vibes." That does not describe, at all, the process that Brian Hartgen is talking about nor is it what's being decried.
Most of us who are developers seen AI aided code generation as a small miracle of sorts, but we also do as Arndt states and, "I use AI to write my code, and then I actually review it, because I know what good looks like and I know what breaks." That is the critical piece that is missing, entirely, from vibecoding as clearly defined for the purposes of this article.
The uninitiated doing what is described by the vibecoding definition laid out above leads to slop far more often than not. AI assisted code generation with the result being reviewed by those who are in a position to refine and correct is is not vibecoding.
I know nothing about this topic, so I am excited to learn, from you & others, that is why I am sending this.
https://leaseysocial.com/@brian/116811322825683619
Great article, thank you for sharing your perspective and encouraging access to accessibility.