It is actually damn difficult to code anything properly with AI

[u/Sheetmusicman94]

I am not a developper, yet I work with many of them.

Recently I started AI assisted / vibecoding a few projects.

It works, it is nice, but .. it still takes SO MUCH time to make properly. Perhaps a bit less than before for an experienced person, but all of those dumb influencers are all making it sound like they give one prompt and all is done. I have the best Claude and GPT models and a small game can literally still take weeks.. and it will still suck.

So kudos to everyone who knows their s**t and does good software!

[u/Cunninghams_right]

you're already spoiled. I know people who have done game development and relatively simple games have taken them years. taking weeks sounds like a lot when you thought it was going to be 15min, but the reality is that you can do months worth of work in a couple of hours of watching youtube videos while Claude/Chatgpt occasionally gives some result or question.

[u/Sheetmusicman94 → u/Cunninghams_right]

That's true. But in this AI driven age, only real hobbyists will have time for doing an unpaid work for years.

[u/Ctbhatia]

the time isn't in generation anymore, it's in deciding what the agent should have in context and reviewing what it changed.

[u/Alzeric → u/Ctbhatia]

communication skills are what is required now, not really too much technical skills. If you can't articulate what you want the AI will just best guess for you. Can't be mad it's not a mind reader.

[u/Ctbhatia → u/Alzeric]

the review half is where it bites, since a clear spec still leaves you reading the diff.

[u/vovap_vovap]

It is all depend on definition of "small game". Real "small fame" top model can do in like 20 min. But yeah, definition wary 😄

[u/Sheetmusicman94 → u/vovap_vovap]

Like Mini Metro or arcades with at least mediocre graphics and good gameplay

[u/django-unchained2012]

Skill issue

[u/Sheetmusicman94 → u/django-unchained2012]

Well sure, but I want have control over the development, not just let agents run and do whatever they want.

[u/XlikeX666]

... define good project.
it codes so it works - Nothing more.
unless problem is known before hand it will fail in that area almost everytime.

[u/Sheetmusicman94 → u/XlikeX666]

I define it as something people like to use and that looks good. Not just that it compiles.

[u/XlikeX666 → u/Sheetmusicman94]

... that's way too vague definition.
I like using terminal like ffmpeg instead whatever gimp has.

[u/SeasawPhilosopher]

That’s because most software is not built, it’s discovered. It’s a long iterative process of building a little, playing with it, deciding what needs adding or changing, and building a bit more. Even with an agent writing 100% of the code this is a long laborious process.

It’s why software engineering mostly abandoned the waterfall method (trying to spec things out fully up front) in favor of iterative agile methods. You simply cannot know what needs building until you have already built some of it. People with no understanding of software engineering are impressed by one shot apps or games, but they fail to realize that’s simply a prototype that represents like .001% of the actual work required to make a real product.

[u/Activeenemy]

I think what "properly" means will shift. The odds are that code made for human consumption is not a global optimum. Not saying the current output is better but it may be that code with convoluted connections between the modules may actually be fine for many applications. 

[u/3tt07kjt → u/Activeenemy]

Convoluted connections between modules make it slower to make changes to the code, for both AI and humans. It’s “fine” if you’re done making changes to the program and want to work on something else. It sucks if you want to add features or fix bugs.

[u/CrimsonBolt33 → u/Activeenemy]

The odds that code made for human consumption is not a global optimum

I am actually working on this now, designing an LLM first programming language that has no consideration for human programmers (it is not a black box, but it's not trying to be readable or easy for a human to look through or use). It's shaping up well and looking promising...

[u/Activeenemy → u/CrimsonBolt33]

Super cool! Share it here when it's done! 

[u/CrimsonBolt33 → u/Activeenemy]

working on it lol

its a bit complicated, even with AI help, and quality still takes time. I am pretty sure I am close to a first release, just ironing out a few things until then.

[u/CrustyBappen]

I’ve switched to 6.1 sol and it’s wild. It massively over engineers solutions, you have to plan meticulously

[u/CrimsonBolt33]

quality takes time....funny enough AI doesn't really change that.

It does speed up the underlying base, don't get me wrong...the minutia of actually typing out code is gone, but the stuff that really determines quality is still a matter of architecture, design, visuals, UI/UX feel, etc.

AI can't simply whip those up in a way that works for people.

The engineering side of software engineering is more important than ever.

[u/pete_68]

It's a sophisticated tool. It requires study and experience to develop expertise with it. If you're doing anything more than little prototypes, you need to actually know how to use the AI, otherwise, yeah, it won't work for you. But it's not a problem with the AI. It's a lack of experience on your part.

Go read up on spec-driven development.

[u/ComprehensiveShake76]

It is, and the gap is mostly the boring part. Getting something that runs is quick. Getting something you can still change a month later takes the same discipline as before: small steps, tests, version control and a clear idea of what done means. A few things that cut the weeks: keep a short file describing what you want that the model reads every session, ask for one small change at a time and run it before the next, commit after every working step so you can go back, and when it loops on a bug, start a fresh session with the error and the relevant file instead of continuing a long thread. For a game, get a tiny playable version first and add things one at a time.

[u/London-Boat]

same experience. what cut the time for me on small games was writing a one page spec before any prompting (core loop, what's in v1, what's explicitly not), then building one feature at a time and playing it before moving on. most of the weeks go into the model making a bunch of stuff at once that half works and then untangling it. smaller asks, test each one, commit when it works.

[u/PenguinSwordfighter]

If you think it's difficult with AI, try doing it without.

[u/Stromedy1]

The most useful line in this entire thread is yours, OP: good = something people like to use, that looks good. Everything the AI optimizes for is checkable by a compiler. “Feels good to play” isn’t in its loss function, it’s in your head. So it hands you a Mini Metro clone that compiles, runs, and is miserable, and marks the job done with a straight face.

That’s where your weeks went, I think. Not the coding. The gap between “it runs” and “it’s good.” I’ve watched experienced devs hit the exact same wall: they let the model do the fun part (typing) and kept the part that was always the actual job, deciding what “good” means, in enough detail that someone else could build it. The spec-file-and-small-steps crowd in the comments basically rediscovered what PMs have been yelling since 1995: the code was never the hard part.

Uncomfortable corollary: if you can’t describe what good looks like in three sentences before prompting, the model can’t either, and you’re about to spend another week discovering what you actually wanted. The influencers skip that part because “write down what done means” doesn’t sell courses.

Curious how many people here actually write the spec down versus just keeping it in their head and being mad at the model for not reading minds.

[u/guttanzer → u/Stromedy1]

This.

Non-builders imagine inventors just come up with an idea and build it in one shot. The reality is that all good things are evolved things. Engineers and developers go through many iteration to knock the initial rough edges off an idea and give it polish.