logoalt Hacker News

StableAlkyne • today at 5:18 AM • 3 replies • view on HN

This is something I keep struggling with.

If someone wants to vibe code an alternative to a SaaS tool, my gut feeling is "no, this is bad and it will blow up" as vibe-coded projects tend to do.

But then the alternative is often paying $X million per year for licenses to a half-assed program that hasn't had a UI update since 2005.

I just don't have a good argument on why they shouldn't when the outcome will be just as dogshit, only cheaper and flashier.


Replies

ozim • today at 6:50 AM

They just started updating the UI and I am pissed off.

I don’t want them to change UI. I have plenty of work to do and have plenty of other tools that I use daily.

I have my workflows, I am swamped with work and now I have to change my workflows because someone changed options in UI where ones that O used are not there anymore.

IlanGR • today at 10:35 AM

I think there's ways to have a solid app by giving ai precise instruction about the architecture it has to follow. Especially by configuring read-only agent for security and quality and builder agents for everything else. It isn't perfect and I wouldn't do critical apps for a company with it but it's solid enough to replace a SaaS tool in my opinion. I think the real subject is wether this vibe-coder knows he'll have to maintain his app...

gokulravi992 • today at 5:57 AM

The argument I'd make isn't about UI or features, it's about who owns security afterwards. The vendor has people whose whole job is patching things like this Ruby regex issue. The internal vibe-coded Jira usually has nobody, and the bugs that bite are boring ones, like a project page that loads for anyone who guesses the ID.

If they go ahead anyway, the ask is just that someone actually owns it after launch, not only builds it.