Ralph loops are also stupid because they don't make use of kv cache properly.
---
https://github.com/steveyegge/gastown/issues/503
Problem:
Every gt command runs bd version to verify the minimum beads version requirement. Under high concurrency (17+ agent sessions), this check times out and blocks gt commands from running.
Impact:
With 17+ concurrent sessions each running gt commands:
- Each gt command spawns bd version
- Each bd version spawns 5-7 git processes
- This creates 85-120+ git processes competing for resources
- The 2-second timeout in gt is exceeded
- gt commands fail with "bd version check timed out"
This is a cost/resources thing. If it's more effective and the resources are available, it's completely fine.
So true! Not to mention the garbled text and inconsistent visuals across the diagrams———an insult to the reader's intelligence. How do people tolerate this visual embodiment of slurred speech?
Which is unfortunate as it would have been really helpful to have actually legible architecture diagrams, given the prose was so difficult for me to untangle due to the manic “fun” irreverent style (and it’s fine to write with a distinctive voice to make it more interesting, but still … confusing).
Plus the dozens of new unique names and connections introduced every few paragraphs to try to keep in my head…
I first asked Gemini 3 Pro to condense it to a boring technical overview and it produced a single page outline and Mermaid diagrams that were nearly as unintelligible as the original post so even AI has issues digesting it apparently…
I don't get it. Even with a very good understanding of what type of work I am doing and a prebuilt knowledge of the code, even for very well specced problem. Claude code etc. just plain fail or use sloppy code. How do these industry figures claim they see no part of a 225K+ line of code and promise that it works?
It feels like we're getting into an era where oceans of code which nobody understands is going to be produced, which we hope AGI swoops in and cleans?
But as a programmer writing C code, you're still building out the software by hand. You're having to read and write a slightly higher level encoding of the software.
With vibe coding, you don't even deal with encodings. You just prompt and move on.
For me the difference is prognosis. Gas Town has no ratchet of quality: its fate was written on the wall since the day Steve decided he didn't want to know what the code says: it will grow to a moderate but unimpressive size before it collapses under its own weight. Even if someone tried to prop it up with stable infra, Steve would surely vibe the stable infra out of existence since he does not care about that
Compilers are deterministic. People who write them test that they will produce correct results. You can expect the same code to compile to the same assembly.
With LLMs two people giving the exact same prompts can get wildly different results. That is not a tool you can use to blindly ship production code. Imagine if your compiler randomly threw in a syscall to delete your hard drive, or decide to pass credentials in plain text. LLMs can and will do those things.
With LLMs all bets are off. Is your code going to import leftpad, call leftpad-as-a-service, write its own leftpad implementation, decide that padding isn't needed after all, use a close-enough rightpad instead? Who knows! It's just rolling dice, so have fun finding out!
Honestly I don't get the hostility. Yegge is running an experiment. I don't think it will work, but it will be interesting and informative to watch.
To be clear, I think LLMs are useful technology. But the degree of increasing insanity surrounding it is putting people off for obvious reasons.
Not really new. Back in the day companies used to outsource their stuff to the lowest bidder agencies in proverbial Elbonia, never looked at the code, and then panickedly hired another agency when the things visibly were not what was ordered. Case studies are abound on TheDailyWTF for the last two decades.
Doing the same with agents will give you the same disastrous results for comparably the same money, just faster. Oh and you can't sue them, really.
Maybe it's better, who knows.
I mean... I feel like it's somewhat telling that his wikipedia page spends half its words on his abrasive communication style, and the only thing approximating a product mentioned is a (lost) Rails-on-Javascript port, and 25 years spent developing a MUD on the side.
Certainly one doesn't get to stay a staff-level engineer at Google without writing code - but in terms of real, shipping software, Yegge's resume is a bit light for his tenure in BigTech
You always have to review overall diff though and go back to agent with broader corrections to do.
This thread is about vibe coding _without_ looking at the code.
I have 100% vibecoded software that I now use instead of commercial implementation that cost me almost 200 usd a month (tool for radiology dictation and report generation).
I built a clinical pharmacist "pocket calculator" kinda app for a specific function. It was like $.60 in claude credits I think. Built with flutter + dart. It's a simple tool suite and I've only built out one of the tools so far.
Now to be fair, that $.60 session was just the coding. I did some brainstorming in chatgpt and generated good markdown files (claude.md, gemini.md, agents.md) before I started.
I think azan_ is demonstrating that shipping products 'suitable for the needs of many' is going to have to compete with 'slopping software for the needs of one'.
There is a small subset of the population who is now enabled to make proof-of-concepts with less effort than before. This is no way diminishes the need for delivering performant, secure, interoperable software at scale to serve humanity's needs.
I'm going on a tangent here but what's with this constant deprecation of mothers to make a point? There are many people here whose mothers can develop software.
I think the thing you're missing is that the tool doesn't need to be marketed because someone else could ask their LLM to make them a similar tool but fitting their use case.
It doesn't matter if the tool "needs" to be marketed. There is a market of paying customers. If other people are paying $200/month, both your and their lives would be improved significantly offer a $100/month replacement software. For all the talk about LLMs replacing the need for packaged software, people are still paying for packaged software, and while they are, you could be making large amounts of money while saving them money. Unless, of course, your vibe-coded app isn't actually remotely capable of replacing the software in question.
Maybe it changes how we code or maybe it doesn't. Vibe coding has definitely helped me write throwaway tools that were useful.
For example, he makes a comment to the effect that anyone using an IDE to look at code in 2026 is a "bad engineer."
No, he threw up a hyperbolic warning and then dove deep into how this is the future of all coding in the rest of his talks/writing.
It’s as good a warning as someone saying “I’m not {X} but {something blatantly showing I am X}”
Simple: you follow the directions, eat the food, and if it tastes good, it worked.
If cooks don't understand physics, chemistry, biology, etc, how do all the cooks in the world ensure they don't get people sick? They follow a set of practices and guidelines developed to ensure the food comes out okay. At scale, businesses develop even more practices (pasteurization, sanitization, refrigeration, etc) to ensure more food safety. None of the people involved understand it at a base level. There are no scientists directly involved in building the machines or day-to-day operations. Yet the entire world's food supply works just fine.
It's all just abstractions. You don't need to see the code for the code to work.
They _can_ usually be manually tidied and fixed, with varying amounts of effort (small project = easy fixes, on a par with regular code review, large project = “this would’ve been easier to write myself...”)
I guess Gas Town’s multiple layers of supervisory entities are meant to replace this manual tidying and fixing, but, well, really?
I don’t understand how people are supposedly having so much success with things like this. Am I just holding it wrong?
If they are having real success, why are there no open source projects that are AI developed and maintained that are _not_ just systems for managing AI? (Or are there and I just haven’t seen them?...)
I've written two seperate moderately-sized codebases using agentic techniques (oftentimes being very lazy and just blanket approving changes), and I don't encounter logic or off-by-one errors very often if at all. It seems quite good at the basic task of writing working code, but it sucks at architecture and you need occasional code review rounds to keep the codebase tidy and readable. My code reviews with the AI are like 50% DRY and separating concerns
Like, why are you manually tidying and fixing things? The first pass is never perfect. Maybe the functionality is there but the code is spaghetti or untestable. Have another agent review and feed that review back into the original agent that built out the code. Keep iterating like that.
My usual workflow:
Agent 1 - Build feature Agent 2 - Review these parts of the code, see if you find any code smells, bad architecture, scalability problems that will pop up, untestable code, or anything else falling outside of modern coding best practices Agent 1 - Here's the code review for your changes, please fix Agent 2 - Do another review Agent 1 - Here's the code review for your changes, please fix
Repeat until testable, maybe throw in a full codebase review instead of just the feature.
Agent 1 - Code looks good, start writing unit tests, go step by step, let's walk through everything, etc. etc. etc.
Then update your .md directive files to tell the agents how to test.
Voila, you have an llm agent loop that will write decent code and get features out the door.
People from OpenAI was saying that GPT2 had achieved AGI. There is a very clear incentive for that statement to be made by people who are not using AI for anything productive.
Even as increasingly bombastic claims are made, it is obvious that the best AI cannot one-shot everything if you are an actual user. And the worst ones: was using Gemini yesterday and it wouldn't stop outputting emojis, was using Grok and it refused to give me a code snippet because it claimed its system prompt forbade this...what can you say?
I don't understand why anyone would want to work on a codebase they didn't understand either. What happens when something goes wrong?
Again though, there is massive financial incentive to make these claims, and some other people will fall along with that because it is good for their career, etc. I have seen this in my own company where senior people are shoehorning this stuff in that they clearly do not actually use or understand (to be clear, this is engineering not management...these are people who definitely should understand but do not).
Great tool, but the 100% vibecoding without looking at the code, for something that you are actually expecting others to use, is a bad idea. Feels more like performance art than actual work. I like jokes, I like coding, room for both but don't confuse the two.
Are you guys just trying to one shot stuff? Are you not using agents to iterate on things? Are you not putting agents against each other (have one code, one critique/test the code, and put them in a loop)?
I still look at the code that's produced, I'm not THAT far down the "vibe coding" path that I'm trusting everything being produced, but I get phenomenal results and I don't actually write any code any more.
So like, yeah, first pass the llm will create my feature and there's definitely some poorly written code or duplicate code or other code smells, but then I tell another agent to review and find all these problems. Then that review gets fed back in to the agent that created the feature. Wham, bam, clean code.
I'm not using gastown or ralph wiggum ($$$) but reading the docs, looking over how things work, I can see how it all comes together and should work. They've been built out to automatically do the review + iteration loop that I do.
The only promise is that you will get your face ripped off.
“WARNING DANGER CAUTION - GET THE F** OUT - YOU WILL DIE […] Gas Town is an industrialized coding factory manned by superintelligent robot chimps, and when they feel like it, they can wreck your shit in an instant. They will wreck the other chimps, the workstations, the customers. They’ll rip your face off if you aren’t already an experienced chimp-wrangler.”
But I still haven't actually used Gastown. It looks cool. I think it probably works, at least somewhat. I get it. But it's just not what I need right now. It's bleeding edge and experimental.
The main thing holding me back from even tinkering with it is the cost. Otherwise I'd probably play with it a little, but it's not something I'd expect to use and ship production code right now. And I ship a ton of production code with claude.
This isn't about anthropomorphism, it's context engineering. By breaking things into more agents, you get more focused context windows.
I believe gas town has some review process built in, but my comment is more to address the idea that it's all slop.
As an aside, Opus 4.5 is the first model I used that most of the time doesn't produce much slop, in case you haven't tried it. Still produces some slop, but not much human required for building things (it's mostly higher level and architectural things they need guidance on).
It's an experiment to discover what the limits are. Maybe the experiment fails because it's scoped beyond the limits of LLMs. Maybe we learn something by how far it gets exactly. Maybe it changes as LLMs get better, or maybe it's a flawed approach to pushing the limits of these.
Can we please stop with the backhanded compliments and judgement? This is cutting edge technology in a brand new field of computing using experimental methods. Please give the guy a break. At least he's trying to advance the state of the art, unlike all the people that copy everyone else.
The problem is that as an outsider it really looks like someone is trying to herd a bunch of monkeys into writing Shakespeare, or trying to advance impressionist art by pretending a baby's first crayon scratches are equivalent to a Pollock.
I bet he's having a lot of fun playing around with "cutting-edge technology", but it's missing any kind of scientific rigor or analysis, so the results are going to be completely useless to anyone wanting to genuinely advance the use of LLMs for programming.
aaaaand right on cue: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/commit/e431f5b4964... https://www.threads.com/@boris_cherny/post/DT15_k2juQH/at-th...
While the agents can generate, they can't exercise that judgement, they can't see nuances and they can't really walk their actions back in a "that's not quite what I meant" sense.
Exercising judgement is where design actually happens, it is iterative, in response to something concrete. The bottleneck isn't just thinking ahead, it's the judgment call when you see the result, its the walking back, as well as thinking forward.
This quote sums it all up for me. It's a crazy project that moves the conversation forward, which is the main value I see in it.
It very well could be a logjam breaker for those who are fortunate enough to get out more than they put into it... but it's very much a gamble, and the odds are against you.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that Yegge is proposing it as a serious tool for serious work, so why all the hate?
Anyways we should settle on simpler/boring. And enhance UX around design, planning, and review.
It pushes and crosses boundaries, it is a mixture of technology and art, it is provocative. It takes stochastic neural nets and mashes them together in bizarre ways to see if anything coherent comes out the other end.
And the reaction is a bunch of Very Serious Engineers who cross their arms and harumph at it for being Unprofessional and Not Serious and Not Ready For Production.
I often feel like our industry has lost its sense of whimsy and experimentation from the early days, when people tried weird things to see what would work and what wouldn't.
Maybe it's because we also have suits telling us we have to use neural nets everywhere for everything Or Else, and there's no sense of fun in that.
Maybe it's the natural consequence of large-scale professionalization, and stock option plans and RSUs and levels and sprints and PMs, that today's gray hoodie is just the updated gray suit of the past but with no less dryness of imagination.
Personally I got about 3 paragraphs into what seemed like a twelve-page fevered dream and filed it under "not for me yet".
Exactly!
Fear over what it means if it works.
Remember the days when people experimented with and talked about things that werent LLMs?
I used to go to a lot of industry events and I really enjoyed hearing about the diversity of different things people worked on both as a hobby and at work.
Now it's all LLMs all the time and it's so goddamn tedious.
I go to tech meetups regularly. The speed at which any conversation end up on the topic of AI is extremely grating to me. No more discussions about interesting problems and creative solutions that people come up with. It's all just AI, agentic, vibe code.
At what point are we going to see the loss of practical skills if people keep on relying on LLMs for all their thinking?
So, Steve has the big scary "YOU WILL DIE" statements in there, but he also has this:
> I went ahead and built what’s next. First I predicted it, back in March, in Revenge of the Junior Developer. I predicted someone would lash the Claude Code camels together into chariots, and that is exactly what I’ve done with Gas Town. I’ve tamed them to where you can use 20–30 at once, productively, on a sustained basis.
"What's next"? Not an experiment. A prediction about how we'll work. The word "productively"? "Productively" is not just "a big fun experiment." "Productively" is what you say when you've got something people should use.
Even when he's giving the warnings, he says things like "If you have any doubt whatsoever, then you can’t use it" implying that it's ready for the right sort of person to use, or "Working effectively in Gas Town involves committing to vibe coding.", implying that working effectively with it is possible.
Every day, I go on Hacker News, and see the responses to a post where someone has an inconsistent message in their blog post like this.
If you say two different and contradictory things, and do not very explicitly resolve them, and say which one is the final answer, you will get blamed for both things you said, and you will not be entitled to complain about it, because you did it to yourself.
Just for fun!
As soon as the results actually matter, the maxim becomes "if it works, but it's stupid, it doesn't work".
> It will be like kubernetes, but for agents,” I said.
> “It will have to have multiple levels of agents supervising other agents,” I said.
> “It will have a Merge Queue,” I said.
> “It will orchestrate workflows,” I said.
> “It will have plugins and quality gates,” I said.
More “agile for agents” than “Kubernetes for agents”.
It's the same chasm that all the AI vendors are exploiting: the gap between people who have some idea what is going on and the vast mass of people who don't but are addicted to excitement or fear of the future.
Yegge is being fake-playful about it but if you have read any of his other writing, this tracks. None of it is to be taken very seriously because he values provocation and mischief a little too highly, but bits of it have some ideas worth thinking about.
acedTrex•1h ago
kh_hk•1h ago
cluckindan•39m ago
I believe agentic coding could eventually be a paradigm shift, if and only if the agents become self-conscious of design decisions and their implications on the system and its surrounding systems as a whole.
If that doesn’t happen, the entire workflow devolves into specifying system states and behavior in natural language, which is something humans are exceedingly bad at.
Coincidently, that is why we have invented programming languages: to be able to express program state and behavior unambiguously.
I’m not bullish on a future where I have to write specifications on all explicit and implicit corner and edge cases just to have an agent make software design choices which don’t feel batshit insane to humans.
We already have software corporations which produce that kind of code simply because the people doing the specifying don’t know the system or the domain it operates in, and the people doing the implementing of those specifications don’t necessarily know any of that either.
jsheard•52m ago