I think we will use more tools to check the programs in the future.

However I don't still believe in vibecoding full programs. There are too many layers in software systems, even when the program core is fully verified, the programmer must know about the other layers.

You are Android app developer, you need to know what phones people commonly use, what kind of performance they have, how the apps are deployed through Google App Store, how to manage wide variety of app versions, how to manage issues when storage is low, network is offline, battery is low and CPU is in lower power state.

LLMs can handle a lot of these issues already, without having the user think about such issues.

Problem is - while these will be resolved (in one way or another) - or left unresolved, as the user will only test the app on his device and that LLM "roll" will not have optimizations for the broad range of others - the user is still pretty much left clueless as to what has really happened.

Models theoretically inform you about what they did, why they did it (albeit, largely by using blanket terms and/or phrases unintelligible to the average 'vibe coder') but I feel like most people ignore that completely, and those who don't wouldn't need to use a LLM to code an entirety of an app regardless.

Still, for very simple projects I use at work just chucking something into Gemini and letting it work on it is oftentimes faster and more productive than doing it manually. Plus, if the user is interested in it, it can be used as a relatively good learning tool.

Skills.md will in time have same problem as MCP, they will bloat the context. I wonder if we could just have the scripts without the descriptions and LLM would have been trained to search the most useful things in specific folder.

This seems like a solvable engineering problem. For example, you could have a lightweight subagent with its own context for reading the skills and determining which to use

I like the idea but the example doesn't make much sense.

In what application would you load all users into memory from database and then filter them with TypeScript functions? And that is the problem with the otherwise sound idea "Functional core, imperative shell". The shell penetrates the core.

Maybe some filters don't match the way database is laid out, what if you have a lot of users, how do you deal with email batching and error handing?

So you have to write the functional core with the side effect context in mind, for example using query builder or DSL that matches the database conventions. Then weave it with the intricacies of your email sender logic, maybe you want iterator over the right size batches of emails to send at once, can it send multiple batches in parallel?

I am surprised by this example, for the same reason.

Generally, performance is a top cause of abstraction leaks and the emergence of less-than-beautiful code. On an infinitely powerful machine it would be easy and advisable to program using neat abstracrions, using purely "the language of" the business. Our machines are not infinitely powerful, and that is especially evident when larger data sets are involved. That's where, to achieve useful performance, you have to increasingly speak "the language of" the machine. This is inevitable, and the big part of the programmer's skill is to be able to speak both "languages", to know when to speak which one, and produce readable code regardless.

Database programming is a prime example. There's a reason, for example, why ORMs are very messy and constitute such excellent footguns: they try to gap this bridge, but inevitably fail in important ways. And having and ORM in the example would, most likely, violate the "functional core" principle from the article.

So it looks like the author accidentally presented a very good counterexample to their own idea. I like the idea though, and I would love to know how to resolve the issue.

> In what application would you load all users into memory from database and then filter them with TypeScript functions?

You’d be surprised! I have worked on a legacy PHP service which did something very similar

I think LLMs are best as learning tools, explaining code and producing something that can be then iterated.

You don't need blockchain for that. Total BS.

I think chatGPT is like porn, it suppresses the urge but it doesn't give the resolution.

Neat, but how do you close the message blocking the calendar?

Print it

It would be nice to be able to preview the result before printing it, so the question still stands.

Cmd-P brings up a preview immediately? Laid out on A4, like it'll print, unlike your arbitrarily-sized browser window.

The layout of the page is going to be a function of the paper size you put it on and the orientation of that paper. Use the print preview.

I used dev tools to nuke it, but it’s really annoying

Print it :)

I have found that cooking for family, friends or small communities can scratch that itch.

Results are tangible, you are doing something with your hands, it only takes few hours (often much less) and you get to give something to people you love.

I tend to have very periodical special interests, maybe 1-3 months per topic. It's not long enough to make life changes, to chase that crazy in me.

Maybe I have to become "Today I Learned" style content creator

I've been dating recently and I think planning dates is mostly fantasizing.

I plan the time, place and activities, imagine things to discuss, how I feel, how other person might feel. Everything feels well thought out and detailed, unpacked.

But it never realizes quite like that, plans get cancelled, places are closed, feelings have changed, discussions are sidetracked or don't feel right. It's all revealed to be a fantasy.

I don't mean you shouldn't try to plan, but unpacking can also be fantasy as much as the packed thing is.