Hi Simon, thanks for your comment. I’m the author, just discovering the thread here on HN (and thanks everyone for the enthusiasm!).
I do think we need a new definition for vibe-coding, because the way the term is used today shouldn’t necessarily include “not even reading the code”.
I’m aware that Karpathy’s original post included that idea, but I think we now have two options:
- Let the term vibe-coding evolve to cover both those who read the code and those who don’t.
- Or define a new term — something that also reflects production-grade coding where you actually read the code. If that’s not vibe-coding, then what is it? (To me, it still feels different from traditional coding.)
I do think we need a new definition for vibe-coding, because the way the term is used today shouldn’t necessarily include “not even reading the code”.
I’m aware that Karpathy’s original post included that idea, but I think we now have two options: - Let the term vibe-coding evolve to cover both those who read the code and those who don’t. - Or define a new term — something that also reflects production-grade coding where you actually read the code. If that’s not vibe-coding, then what is it? (To me, it still feels different from traditional coding.)