zlacker

>>meetpa+(OP)
My frustration with using these models for programming in the past has largely been around their tendency to hallucinate APIs that simply don't exist. The Gemini 2.5 models, both pro and flash, seem significantly less susceptible to this than any other model I've tried.

There are still significant limitations, no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does. But I'm finding that these Gemini models are finally able to replace searches and stackoverflow for a lot of my day-to-day programming.

>>segpha+J4
If they never get good at abstraction or architecture they will still provide a tremendous amount of value. I have them do the parts of my job that I don't like. I like doing abstraction and architecture.

>>doug_d+Sk
Sure, but that's not the problem people have with them nor the general criticism. It's that people without the knowledge to do abstraction and architecture don't realize the importance of these things and pretend that "vibe coding" is a reasonable alternative to a well-thought-out project.

>>myname+Yr
The way I see this is that it's just another skill differentiator that you can take advantage of if you can get it right.

That is, if it's true that abstraction and architecture are useful for a given product, then people who know how to do those things will succeed in creating that product, and those who don't will fail. I think this is true for essentially all production software, but a lot of software never reaches production.

Transitioning or entirely recreating "vibecoded" proofs of concept to production software is another skill that will be valuable.

Having a good sense for when to do that transition, or when to start building production software from the start, and especially the ability to influence decision makers to agree with you, is another valuable skill.

I do worry about what the careers of entry level people will look like. It isn't obvious to me how they'll naturally develop any of these skills.