this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
84 points (92.0% liked)
Technology
88122 readers
3389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find that Python requires a fair bit of discipline to keep it readable, and I've seen some very unreadable code written by people. Vibe coding with Python's dynamic nature seems like a match made in hell.
This is true although that’s what enforcing strict type checking and good linting is supposed to help with. I think it’s partially an issue that you can kinda just type what you think and not everyone thinks efficiently/ programmer-y
Edited for clarity
Agreed! I think both linting and type checking are extremely important to Python, but it's also an extra step that far too many people just don't take. And honestly, I used to get tripped up sometimes with setting up Python tooling before I started using uv.
Unfortunately I also have to work with the occasional Python script that someone just slapped together, and that's something far too easy to do in Python. It does kind of remind me of vibe coding. Initial velocity seems high, but if you're not thinking about it, long term maintenance tanks.
That's not to say Python is bad, and there is certainly a lot of good Python code out there too. But it's a language that does make it easy to make a mess, which will probably be compounded by LLMs.
It's manageable if you pass along these rules to the LLM. I've actually had more success asking the LLM than giving code reviews to some interns, and even someone who coded professionally before.
Ok, I'm not suggesting replacing humans with AI and I despise companies trying to do this unsustainable practice.
With that out of the way, I'll restate that LLMs follow some rules more reliably than humans today. It's also easier to give feedback when you don't have to worry about coming across as a pedantic prick for pointing out the smaller things.
On your point that LLMs are not improving; well, agents and tooling are definitely improving. 6 months ago I would need to babysit an agent to implement a moderately complex feature that touches a handful of files. Nowadays, not as much. It might get some things wrong, but usually because it lacks context rather than ability. They can write tests, run them, and iterate until it passes, then I can just look at the diff to make sure the tests and solution makes sense. Again, something that would fail to yield decent results just in the last year.