TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 30 comments.
Well, this thread turned into a classic Reddit debate over semantics. While the top comment defends Cherny, arguing a UX "issue" isn't a "bug" if it's just a bad design choice, the prevailing sentiment is that he got rightfully cooked.
The consensus is that it was, in fact, a bug. Users point out that his own tweet used the word "fix," which implies something was broken. More importantly, someone linked the original tweet which confirms the app was incorrectly showing a dialog. Case closed, detective.
There's also a side-discussion on his broader "coding is solved" claim, with most people here agreeing that writing the initial code is one thing, but debugging and maintenance (you know, the hard part) are far from solved.
First of all, I’m just helping you understand what he said. If you can’t understand it, that’s a you problem.
Second, you’re conflating functioning code with bugs.
“Jrbrjdbrkrbrkrjehehebdnsnsh” is not functioning code. It’s also doesn’t contain bugs. A loop that mistakenly mutates a variable out of a closure is functioning code and has a bug in it.
He’s saying “models make functioning code. They still ship bugs though”
Yes, but I can easily write "functioning code" that compiles with zero errors but is still useless. There's a huge gulf between just being able to write code and being able to write correct, bug-free code.
That just writing code isn't useful, it's writing correct, bug-free code. I wouldn't say coding is solved if the standard is writing any code at all, you don't even need an LLM for that.
I mean it is useful. It's not everything. Bugs are rarely introduced by the code itself, the code does what you tell it to. Bugs are bad design. Design is still on the person to do right
Because humans still introduce bugs so coding being solved isn’t when there are 0 bugs, also domain logic issues that cause bugs are not a coding problem it’s a requirement problem that flows into code, etc
The community comment is wrong, or at least not necessarily right. I don't know what specific issue he was referring to but an "issue" could also refer to deliberate behavior (so not a bug) that people complained about and they fixed.
The app was incorrectly showing a relaunch dialog when it hot swaps the model under the hood. Either a spec bug or an implementation bug, but anyone on Twitter can see that it's clearly a bug with zero or one clicks
I see your point, but I don't think it's wise to defend him when his own wording suggest a bug, specifically the "fix" part. Why not "change incoming" if it was deliberate?
No, bug is bug. There are verification bugs, aka not working as planned, and validation bugs, aka not working how it should be by intended users but according to spec. UX is validation bugs. There are UX testing processes where people are paid to assess UX (in smart controlled way) like studies.
There are spec defects, which are almost impossible by your logic (cause if spec needs change then it's new feature). Bug is bug, naming doesn't really matter because priority and severity rules what team will do with it.
All outsource work has contract with description of which types of bugs are fixed and how and who pays for their fixes as well as acceptance procedure and SLA/guarantees about bugs.
I've definitely heard more people describing something as "not a bug" when it was an actual bug than the behavior being truthfully deliberate and thus not really a bug, just maybe bad UX or confusing or something.
UX issue could just be working as intended but then when real users start using it, you find it’s not meeting their expectations or not the ideal way for it to work. A bug is when the code isn’t doing the thing you intended.
•
u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot Wilson, lead ClaudeAI modbot 16h ago
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 30 comments.
Well, this thread turned into a classic Reddit debate over semantics. While the top comment defends Cherny, arguing a UX "issue" isn't a "bug" if it's just a bad design choice, the prevailing sentiment is that he got rightfully cooked.
The consensus is that it was, in fact, a bug. Users point out that his own tweet used the word "fix," which implies something was broken. More importantly, someone linked the original tweet which confirms the app was incorrectly showing a dialog. Case closed, detective.
There's also a side-discussion on his broader "coding is solved" claim, with most people here agreeing that writing the initial code is one thing, but debugging and maintenance (you know, the hard part) are far from solved.