I'm willing to bet most of their libraries are definitely vibe coded. I'm using the claude-agent-sdk and there are quite a few bugs and some weird design decisions. And looking through the actual python code it's definitely not what I would classify 'best practice'. Bunch of imports in functions, switching on strings instead of enums, etc.

I had to downgrade to an earlier release because an update introduced a regression where they weren't handling all of their own event types.

A few weeks ago the github integration was completely broken on the claude website for multiple days. It's very clear they vibe code everything and while it's laudable that they eat their own dogfood, it really projects a very amateurish image about their infrastructure and implementation quality.

I think they are betting that any of this code is transient and not worth too much effort because once Opus 5 is traimed, they can just ask it to refactor and fix everything and improve code quality enough so that things don't fall apart while adding more features, and when opus 5.5 comes out it will be able to clean up after opus 5. And so on. They don't expect these codebase to be long lived and worth the time investment.

But they are burning billions. Why worry about a few millions for a bunch of 10x developers that fix the UI issues?

They feel there's more leverage in putting those 10xers also on herding more agents and being fast.

I don't see how the quality could be so low unless they coded it by hand.

Claude is nearly AGI and would never produce something so poor.

I think some people are missing the sarcasm here

at the moment it's impossible to distinguish between AI boosters who really believe that Claude is nearly AGI and jokes about them

Poe's law?

Most of the people using this website Don't Read Good.

Graduates of the Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too?

In theory, comments on Hacker News should advance discussion and meet a certain quality bar lest they be downvoted to make room for the ones that meet the criteria. I am not sure if this ever was true in practice, it certainly seems to have waned in the years I have been a reader of this forum (see one of the many pelican on a bike comments on any AI model release thread), but I'd expect some people still try to vote with this in mind.

Being sarcastic doesn't lower the bar for a comment to meet to not get downvoted, so I wouldn't go thinking people miss the sarcasm without first considering whether the comment adds to the discussion when wondering why a comment is downvoted.

I only understood it after reading some of co_king_5’s other comments. This is Poe’s law in action. I know several people who converted into AI coding cultists and they say the same things but seriously. Curiously none of them were coders before AI.

Tbh, after using it myself, I genuinely don’t see it writing code this buggy, so I don’t get what’s going on here

I'm willing to bet you don't full-on YOLO vibecode like the lead Claude Code developer, running 10 Claude Code sessions in parallel to push 259 pull requests that modify >40k lines of code in a month [0]? There is zero chance any of that code was rigorously reviewed.

I use Claude Code almost every day [1], and when used properly (i.e. with manual oversight), it's an amazing productivity booster. The issue is when it's used to produce far more code than can be rigorously reviewed.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1px44q0/claude_co...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45511128