For example, if I’m vibe-coding a quick web app with more JavaScript than I care to read
Ah, please don't publish that code then. It's a experiment and not something juniors should come to learn as "good enough".
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
35 points (84.3% liked)
Programming
23631 readers
148 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
i have read it all hoping to find out what he is talking about... instead, the blog post ended 🤷♂️
I'm guessing he's alluding to a bunch of asserts, data sanitization, and granular error reporting. But yea, who knows.
The word you are looking for is "robust".
Debugging isn't the worst thing in programming. The worst thing is having a task you need to do and a solution already written, but not knowing how to use the solution to solve the task.
The word you are looking for is “robust”.
As Taleb explains in his book, antifragility is fundamentally different from the concepts of resiliency (i.e. the ability to recover from failure) and robustness (that is, the ability to resist failure).
Uh huh. But fragile code is not (just) code that tends towards getting worse
Large language models can generate defensive code, but if you’ve never written defensively yourself and you learn to program primarily with AI assistance, your software will probably remain fragile.
This is the thesis of this argument, and it's completely unfounded. "AI can't create antifragile code" Why not? Effective tests and debug time checks, at this point, come straight from claude without me even prompting for it. Even if you are rolling the code yourself, you can use AI to throw a hundred prompts at it asking "does this make sense? are there any flaws here? what remains untested or out of scope that I'm not considering?" like a juiced up static analyzer
Why not?
Are you asking the author or people in general? If the author didn't answer "why not" for you, then I can.
Yes, I've used Claude. Let's skip that part.
If you don't know how to write or identify defensive code, you can't know if the LLM generated defensive code. So in order for a LLM to be trusted to generate defensive code, it needs to do so 100% of the time, or very close to that.
You seem to be under the impression that Claude does so, but you presumably can tell if code is written with sufficient guards and tests. You know to ask the LLM to evaluate and revise the code. Someone without experience will not know to ask that.
Speaking now from my experience, after using Claude for work to write tests, I came out of that project with no additional experience writing tests. I had to do another personal project after that to learn the testing library we used. Had that work project given me sufficient time to actually do the work, I'd have spent some time learning the testing library we used. That was unfortunately not the case.
The tests Claude generated were too rigid. It didn't test important functionality of the software. It tested exact inputs/outputs using localized output values, meaning changing localizations was potentially enough to break tests. It tested cases that didn't need to be tested, like whether certain dependency calls were done in a specific order (those calls were done in parallel anyway). It wrote some good tests, but a lot of additional tests that weren't needed, and skipped some tests that were needed.
As a tool to help someone who already knows what they're doing, it can be useful. It's not a good tool for people who don't know what they're doing.