Comment by insane_dreamer
1 day ago
This makes a lot of sense.
For example, we (and many others) depend heavily on numpy. It's been around for decades and heavily battle tested. If someone came out with a new version of numpy vibe-code rewritten in a week, with assurances that "all tests pass", do you think we would adopt it? Absolutely not. We would have no confidence that there aren't some latent bugs or that we can fully trust the results.
It has nothing to do with AI having rewritten it, it has to do with being battle tested over time. If a team of humans had rewritten it in a week, I wouldn't trust or use it either.
>it has to do with being battle tested over time. If a team of humans had rewritten it in a week, I wouldn't trust or use it either.
"it was made in a week" gets repeated a lot on HN, but the PR wasn't a release. They've been working on the rust rewrite for more than a month and it hasn't shipped.
One week to four weeks doesn't make it better.
Did you miss the part where they said "it hasn't shipped"?
> They've been working on the rust rewrite for more than a month and it hasn't shipped
doesn't make any difference
the point is, users haven't been using it for years, like the original
there is absolutely no way that you can internally test all the use cases that users encounter, especially with such a large code base
That's like saying "It took me a month to hand-make this cupboard. If someone made a cupboard in just one day using a machine, do you think I'd trust it?".
Only you can prevent tangential arguments about analogies.
Took me a while to understand what you meant by this, and I hope I got it right: If I use a simile or analogie, people will argue about that instead of my point?
Possibly, but my simile was strong enough to be an example. In fact, it's something that happened (still happens to some extent) in carpentry. Note well the absense of any argument against it, but the downvoting.