I didn't have the impression anyone felt ashamed of dating online back in the days and I don't have the impression vibe coders feel any shame today.
I don't know about online dating, but I think the vibe coders I've interacted with the past few years break down into two distinct groups:
1. People who let agents drive designs/plans and just let them rip (what I would /actually/ call vibe coding) -- who place value in the final product, and aren't shameful about the tools used to get there as long as the product is "good" (and generally reroll entire apps from a single prompt until they get something that's actually good)
2. People who provide (or collaborate with AI on) designs/plans and use AI to write the code (which I wouldn't call vibe coding, but often gets conflated) -- who place value in the planning, and aren't shameful about the tools used to implement them as long as the architecture is "good"
Either way: I'd say most people who "vibe code" (in either category) are a little annoyed at the term inherently belittling what they make, but generally dismiss the term rather than feel any shame about it.
I'd be surprised to learn anyone in my programming network doesn't use any AI anywhere. It's a very powerful tool that's integrated pretty much everywhere into the 2026 Developer's toolkit, and the question is generally /where/ you use it (or not), not whether you use it at all.
I would argue that if you belong to group one you have not actually "made" anything.
I would also argue that group two aren't "software engineers" anymore; what they do is less engineering and more architecture. Perhaps "agentic developer" is more appropriate.
> I would argue that if you belong to group one you have not actually "made" anything.
That's exactly the sentiment I'm referring to.
I'm excited that group one is full of people who couldn't previously "make" anything with code, but now can (in the same way I'm excited that more people can now "make" music, art, stories, movies, etc). And they're definitely making stuff (friends with kids are making games that their friends play, sharing homemade videos with each other, making bedtime stories, making websites and apps that others use, etc).
I'd also argue that theory and architecture have always been closer to "software engineering" than coding ever was, but I also acknowledge I've got a bit of a bias belonging to group 2 (otherwise: been coding for ~25 years).
>I'm excited that group one is full of people who couldn't previously "make" anything with code, but now can (in the same way I'm excited that more people can now "make" music, art, stories, movies, etc). And they're definitely making stuff (friends with kids are making games that their friends play, sharing homemade videos with each other, making bedtime stories, making websites and apps that others use, etc).
This is a dangerous game people are playing. One where people trick themselves into believing that ideation == creation. Not only are they not the same, framing it as such gives people licensure to crowd out the actual creatives who spent countless hours creating the inputs to these models.
Furthermore, I disagree with the following:
>I'm excited that group one is full of people who couldn't previously "make" anything with code, but now can (in the same way I'm excited that more people can now "make" music, art, stories, movies, etc).
What are these barriers people keep referring to that prevented people from creating music, art, stories pre-2022? If someone owned a phone, laptop, etc. in 2022 they already had access any number of free digital tools to assist in making music, art, stories, home made films. Hell, you can buy a pen and notebook from a store for a handful of dollars.
What you really mean is that pre-2022 nobody could produce a decent looking photo, song, or program without having to spend a lot of time learning about that craft. But that isn't a barrier--someone making a shitty song is still making music.
People just want the ability to generate content which resembles quality without having worked for it. In practice, this kind of behavior is far closer to consumption than craft/art/making/whatever.
k__ · · focus · HN ↗
drusepth · · focus · HN ↗
1. People who let agents drive designs/plans and just let them rip (what I would /actually/ call vibe coding) -- who place value in the final product, and aren't shameful about the tools used to get there as long as the product is "good" (and generally reroll entire apps from a single prompt until they get something that's actually good)
2. People who provide (or collaborate with AI on) designs/plans and use AI to write the code (which I wouldn't call vibe coding, but often gets conflated) -- who place value in the planning, and aren't shameful about the tools used to implement them as long as the architecture is "good"
Either way: I'd say most people who "vibe code" (in either category) are a little annoyed at the term inherently belittling what they make, but generally dismiss the term rather than feel any shame about it.
I'd be surprised to learn anyone in my programming network doesn't use any AI anywhere. It's a very powerful tool that's integrated pretty much everywhere into the 2026 Developer's toolkit, and the question is generally /where/ you use it (or not), not whether you use it at all.
jplusequalt · · focus · HN ↗
I would argue that if you belong to group one you have not actually "made" anything.
I would also argue that group two aren't "software engineers" anymore; what they do is less engineering and more architecture. Perhaps "agentic developer" is more appropriate.
drusepth · · focus · HN ↗
That's exactly the sentiment I'm referring to.
I'm excited that group one is full of people who couldn't previously "make" anything with code, but now can (in the same way I'm excited that more people can now "make" music, art, stories, movies, etc). And they're definitely making stuff (friends with kids are making games that their friends play, sharing homemade videos with each other, making bedtime stories, making websites and apps that others use, etc).
I'd also argue that theory and architecture have always been closer to "software engineering" than coding ever was, but I also acknowledge I've got a bit of a bias belonging to group 2 (otherwise: been coding for ~25 years).
jplusequalt · · focus · HN ↗
This is a dangerous game people are playing. One where people trick themselves into believing that ideation == creation. Not only are they not the same, framing it as such gives people licensure to crowd out the actual creatives who spent countless hours creating the inputs to these models.
Furthermore, I disagree with the following:
>I'm excited that group one is full of people who couldn't previously "make" anything with code, but now can (in the same way I'm excited that more people can now "make" music, art, stories, movies, etc).
What are these barriers people keep referring to that prevented people from creating music, art, stories pre-2022? If someone owned a phone, laptop, etc. in 2022 they already had access any number of free digital tools to assist in making music, art, stories, home made films. Hell, you can buy a pen and notebook from a store for a handful of dollars.
What you really mean is that pre-2022 nobody could produce a decent looking photo, song, or program without having to spend a lot of time learning about that craft. But that isn't a barrier--someone making a shitty song is still making music.
People just want the ability to generate content which resembles quality without having worked for it. In practice, this kind of behavior is far closer to consumption than craft/art/making/whatever.