I have a new technique for reliably vibecoding apps:

First, you write your requirements in an unambiguous specification language. This is the prompt, but to disambiguate it from less precise prompts, we will call it the source of truth encoding, or source code for short. You then feed it to an agent that will create an of outputs by applying some heuristic-driven transforms that are likely (but not guaranteed) to improve performance. This agent compiles a load of information about how to transform the code into a single pipeline, so we’ll call it a ‘compiler’. This then feeds to the next agent that finds missing parts of the program and tries to fill them in with existing implementations. This is more efficient than simply generating new code and more reliable since the existing implementations are better tested. This agent has a knowledge base of existing code organised in grouping that I’ll refer to as ‘libraries’. It creates links in that web of knowledge between the outputs of the first agent and these existing ‘libraries’ and so we’ll call it a ‘linker’.

I think it might catch on. VCs: I think we can build this thing for only a couple of hundred million dollars! And the compute requirements are far lower than for existing agentic workflows, so we can sell it as a service and become profitable far sooner than other AI startups. Sign up now for our A round! We have a working proof of concept that can output the Linux kernel, LibreOffice, and many other large codebases from existing prompts!

@david_chisnall
I wish the market cared about reliability

@wolf480pl @david_chisnall

> I wish the market cared about reliability

Nobody has cared enough about FOSS maintainers to make sure they can eat. Why would they start caring about the purity ideals of noncontributing users?

@hopeless @david_chisnall

I don't mean it from a noncontributing FOSS user perspective.

Imagine two SaaS companies.

One of them takes its time to make reliable software, and run it in a fault-tolerant configuration.

The other vibe-codes everything in a fraction of that time and releases a buggy service.

Both charge their users a subscription for the use of their service.

Which do you think will make more money?

@wolf480pl @david_chisnall

Imagine two OSes... OS A "vibe codes everything" and "releases a buggy service" (for decades now).

OS B has no AI code, "takes its time to make reliable software" and can be run in a "fault tolerant configuration".

So due to your poor choice of example:

- OS A is windows, it makes billions.

- OS B is Linux, you can share copies for $0 under GPL 2.

@hopeless
So you decided to apply my argument to a situation that is not analogous, to one that compares two OSes whose developers pursue different goals, and somehow you still arrived at the same conclusion as I did.. thanks I guess?

Anyway, my point is, @david_chisnall's idea of "technique for reliably vibecoding apps" will not attract the investors he's talking about, because the investors want to make a lot of money, and those paying for software don't seem to appreciate reliability.

1/

@hopeless @david_chisnall
A better analogy would be a quickly thrown together system called Unix vs an arguably more carefully designed and higher quality system called Multics.

Turns out Multics took too long to develop and didn't get many users, while Unix started later, released first, and spread into many clones (Linux being one of them) and is very widely used to this day.

"worse is better", unfortunately