I feel like "make physically unwell" here just means they'll taste something gross, not realize it is the baking powder, and treat the feeling as if something is wrong with their body. I know mixing up baking soda and baking powder has made for some pretty unpleasant tasting food for me.

No, because those things don't change the logical underpinnings of the code itself. LLM-written code does act in ways different enough from a human contributor that it's worth flagging for the reviewer.

Keep it. Go up the list to the next thing that you don't use that you can throw away.

> At least it exists, which it probably wouldn't have if developed with "camp 2" tendencies.

Ah yes, if you aren't shitting code out the door as fast as possible, you're probably not shipping anything at all.

That isn't a fair reading.

Neither is the original assertion. There are thousands of examples of exceptionally well crafted code bases that are used by many. I would posit the Linux kernel as an example, which is arguably the most used piece of software in the world.

> [...] one beautiful thing than ten useful things

They didn't say beautiful/crafted things were not necessary.

They were critiquing viewpoints that all code needs to be.

Even if we (for humorous purposes) took their 1 in 10 ratio as a deadly serious cap on crafting, 10% of projects being "exceptionally well crafted code" would be a wonderful world. I would take 1% high craft to 99% useful! (Not disjointly of course.)

Seems fair to me, responding to someone mocking people for caring about their craft.

This is like when people decided that everyone was either "introvert" or "extrovert" and then everyone started making decisions about how to live their life based on this extremely reductive dichotomy.

There are products that are made better when the code itself is better. I would argue that the vast majority of products are expected to be reliable, so it would make sense that reliable code makes for better product. That's not being a code craftsman, it's being a good product designer and depending on your industry, sometimes even being a good businessman. Or, again, depending on your industry, not being callous about destroying people's lives in the various ways that bad code can.

> Claude Code is clearly a pile of vibe-coded garbage. The UI is janky and jumps all over the place, especially during longer sessions. (Which also have a several second delay to render. In a terminal).

Don't you know, they're proud of their text interface that is structured more like a video game. https://spader.zone/engine/

Not to stand up for Claude Code in any way, I don’t like the company or use the product. This is just a related tangent-

one of my favorite software projects, Arcan, is built on the idea that there’s a lot of similarities between Game Engines, Desktop Environments, Web Browsers, and Multimedia Players. https://speakerdeck.com/letoram/arcan?slide=2

They have a really cool TUI setup that is kinda in a real sense made with a small game engine :)

https://arcan-fe.com/2022/04/02/the-day-of-a-new-command-lin...

This is a pretty interesting article in of itself

I mean if you want glitchy garbage that works in the happy path mostly then game engine is the right foundation to build on. Software quality is the last thing game devs are known for. The whole industry is about building clever hacks to get something to look/feel a certain way, not building robust software that's correct to some spec.

Can confirm (used to work in the games industry). Code reviews and automatic testing of any kind are a rare sight.

I'd posit that the average game dev is significantly more skilled than the average dev.

Thanks for that ad-read and self-promotion! Maybe next time you can contribute some insight that doesn't feed your balance (spread)sheet.

No one says it's going to disappear overnight, they're saying it's going to atrophy.

You’re being a bit pedantic here “leading somewhere” is accepted shorthand for a lasting, satisfying relationship that is good for both parties.

Relationships aren't transactional. This isn't a business deal.

This is a well known problem in these kind of systems. I’m not 100% on what the issue is mechanically but it’s something like they can only represent the existence of things and not non-existence so you end up with a sort of “don’t think of the pink elephant” type of problem.

Isn't it just that, in the underlying text distribution, both "X" and "don't do X" are positively correlated with the subsequent presence of X? I've never seen that analysis run directly but it would surprise me if it weren't true.