Same argument was had when IDEs became popularized. I remember writing Java in notepad for my Java 117 course forever ago because the professor was insistent that they were a crutch instead of a tool. (To clarify, I don’t suggest “vibe coding” is the way. At a certain point you have to take responsibility for the end product you’re producing and that includes reviewing as much code as necessary to ensure that the output is functional and quality. If I were to compare it, I’d compare it to a compiler. Another layer of abstraction. The C compilers for example used to take what is perfectly well written code and occasionally mangle the output into some unholy abomination of error ridden assembly output, until they were patched and all C standard features implemented ((which iirc some still aren’t, although that’s a bit pedantic)), but I’d bet only a slim fraction of coders review the output assembly of the C compiler nowadays, they’re basically foolproof, however a good coder should still be able to understand and review assembly because a situation may arise where it’s necessary. As for the analogy, LLM based coding tools are in that error ridden phase as well from what I can tell, so taking responsibility for the code they produce is more important now than ever.)
This is how you get left behind being a luddite.
Same argument was had when IDEs became popularized. I remember writing Java in notepad for my Java 117 course forever ago because the professor was insistent that they were a crutch instead of a tool. (To clarify, I don’t suggest “vibe coding” is the way. At a certain point you have to take responsibility for the end product you’re producing and that includes reviewing as much code as necessary to ensure that the output is functional and quality. If I were to compare it, I’d compare it to a compiler. Another layer of abstraction. The C compilers for example used to take what is perfectly well written code and occasionally mangle the output into some unholy abomination of error ridden assembly output, until they were patched and all C standard features implemented ((which iirc some still aren’t, although that’s a bit pedantic)), but I’d bet only a slim fraction of coders review the output assembly of the C compiler nowadays, they’re basically foolproof, however a good coder should still be able to understand and review assembly because a situation may arise where it’s necessary. As for the analogy, LLM based coding tools are in that error ridden phase as well from what I can tell, so taking responsibility for the code they produce is more important now than ever.)