alt Hacker NewsMy experience has been that cruft accumulates and creates back pressure via growing token usage.
The APIs aren’t clean, which creates indirections to other parts of the codebase to check on leaking abstractions. It doesn’t learn, though, so you pay for those indirections every time (right now, anyways).
I’ve not been impressed with its ability to clean that up with a generic “make it gud” kind of prompt. I have to point it at something crufty, but it will fix it then
Replies
I've been searching for the right term for this; you've nailed it: back pressure.
Whether the "cruft" is test accumulation, multiple conflicting architecture approaches, a bazillion ADRs/"laws", or just pure code sprawl, the outcome is token and time waste which gets worse as it compounds. And it compounds quickly.
I've tried automated code review through multiple lenses, more ADRs, instructions out the wazoo, but at the end of the day I just cannot figure out how to replicate the "through-line" consistency that responsible humans who need to maintain a system generally create.
Of course, most software projects do eventually fall victim to this same problem and need to be rewritten, but it takes place on the order of years, and by the time you need a rewrite the business has changed enough to demand one anyway. But with AI-owned products, this can happen in days or months.
I agree, but for some projects, that first vibed version is just about good enough and becomes the final version. I have a few things like that and it was nice not to have to bother.
For work stuff, I don't dare 'vibing' anything, and force myself through torturous design cycles and regular refactoring runs. But thats serious stuff with hundreds of thousands of users.
Btw. Fable 5.2 seems to burn through tokens with gusto. I ran my benchmark suite on it, added a complex feature to a hobby project (a gothic cathedral designer), and voila, 2 resets gone.