> If anyone finds themselves having a gut reaction to "AI", just mentally replace it with "an intern" or "a guy from Fiverr"

It’s not the guy from Fiverr anyone is annoyed with. It’s the tech CEOs who beat everyone over the head with:

- ”the future will be a-guy-from-Fiverr-native”

- ”we are mandating that 80% of our employees incorporate a-guy-from-Fiverr into their daily workflow by year end”

And everyone pretends this is serious.

Then there are people who are pulling off cool demo stunts that amount to duct taping fireworks to a lawn mower but they post about it on X doing their best Steve Jobs thought leader impersonation.

And again everyone pretends like this is serious.

The annoyance is like that friend you tell about this great new song, and they’re excited, but only because it’s something they can to tell other people and look cool. Not because they’re into music.

For real. For someone to even understand why this tool is useful and functions as intended, they need to have some deeper understanding of software development. Who cares if the implementation was done with AI. With Claude Code, I rarely write code by hand these days, yet my brain hurts more than ever from all the actual problem solving I’m able to drill into with all the programming cruft out of the way. I did it by hand for 15 years, and I don’t feel bad at all for handing that part over.

gee I wonder why people don't want "AI" code anywhere near their single source of truth (database)

I think they may be jumping on the "shit on AI assisted project" bandwagon. I am by no means reaching for ai tools at every turn, but to suggest its plagiarized is laughable.

Don't worry about these trolls.

I agree that it's ultimately about the product.

But here's the problem. Five years ago, when someone on here said, "I wrote this non-trivial software", the implication was that a highly motivated and competent software engineer put a lot of effort into making sure that the project meets a reasonable standard of quality and will probably put some effort into maintaining the project.

Today, it does not necessarily imply that. We just don't know.

The architect knows what it is doing. And the workers are professionals with supervisors to check that the work is done properly.

Every single commit is Claude. No human expert involved. Would you trust your company database to an 25 dollars vibe session? Would you live in a 5 dollars building? Is there any difference from hand tailored suit, constructed to your measurements, and a 5 dollars t-shirt? Some people don't want to live in a five dollars world.

Asking someone to build a house - and then saying I built it - is "very misleading" to put it nicely.

When you order a website on upwork - you didn't build it. You bought it.

> In such cases the person says, I have built this building

But this is also bad, because it's wrong. They drew it and maybe got some paperwork through a planning department. They didn't build it.

That has to be the worst analogy I have read in a while, and I’m HN that says something.

That's a lot of ifs.

What an outrageously bad analogy. Everyone involved in that building put their professional reputations and licenses on the line. If that building collapses, the people involved will lose their livelihoods and be held criminally liable.

Meanwhile this vibe coded nonsense is provided “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. We don’t even know if he read it before committing and pushing.

No, it's more like the architect has a cousin who is like "I totally got this bro" and builds the building for them.

Could we please avoid the strawmen? Nowhere have I claimed that they didn't put work into this. Nowhere did I say that delegation is bad. I'd like to encourage a discussion, but then please counter the opinion that I gave, not a made-up one that I neither stated nor actually hold.

It's being downvoted because the commenter is asking for something that is already in the readme. Furthermore, it's ironic that the person raising such an issue is performing the same mistake as they are calling out - neglecting to read something they didn't write.

If you don’t read code you execute someone is going to steal everything on your file system one day

Eh, DB branching is mostly only necessary for testing - locally, in CI or quick rollbacks on a shared dev instance.

Or at least I cannot come up with a usecase for prod.

From that perspective, it feels like it'd be a perfect usecase to embrace the LLM guided development jank

>This is highly toxic, lead to no discussion

Why good faith is a requirement for commenting but not for submissions? I would argue the good faith assumption should be disproportionately more important for submissions given the 1 to many relationship. You're not lying, it indeed is toxic and rapidly spreading. I'm glad this is the case.

Most came here for the discussion and enlightenment to be bombarded by heavily biased, low effort marketing bullshit. Presenting something that has no value to anyone besides the builder is the opposite of good faith. This submissions bury and neglect useful discussion, difficult to claim they are harmless and just not useful.

Not everyone in the industry is vibe coding, that is simply not true. but that's not the point I want to make. You don't need to be defensive about your generative tools usage, it is ok to use whatever, nobody cares. Just be ready to maintain your position and defend your ideals. Nothing is more frustrating then giving honest attention to a problem, considering someone else perspective, to just then realize it was just words words words spewed by slop machine. Nobody would give a second thought if that was disclosed. You are responsible for your craft. The moment you delegate that responsibility into the thrash you belong. If the slop machine is so great, why in hell would I need you to ask it to help me? Nonsensical.

> Everybody in the industry is vibecoding right now

no ‘everybody’ is not. a lot of us are using zero LLMs and continuing to build (quality) software just fine

I think you need to start with the following statement:

> We would like to acknowledge the open source people, who are the traditional custodians of this code. We pay our respects to the stack overflow elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, the code and libraries that $program sits upon, their work. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the search engine for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding

Then if you would kindly say that a Brazilian invented the airplane that would be good too. If you don’t do this you should be cancelled for your heinous crime.

Indeed. There is a difference between "I have learnes by reading a lot of SO" and "I have copied the contents of this file verbatim from SO". Using Claude is very close to the latter without saying it.

You should almost never stop testing in prod.

https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/testing-in-production

It was so casual I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out XD

This is typical HN: everyone is here. I've seen a number of threads that unflod like this: "Lately I hacked up a satellite link to..." → "As an engineer who built the comm equipment of that satellite,.." → "As the astronaut who launched the satellite from ICS,..", etc.

Nice. But it's not even available yet.

It will take years to call this mature. Certainly not "soon"

For me that page has basically 0 descriptive content.

I think the examples here are pretty good: https://boringsql.com/posts/beyond-start-end-columns/

This is kind of a complicated example, but here goes:

Say we want to create a report that determines how long a machine has been down, but we only want to count time during normal operational hours (aka operational downtime).

Normally this would be as simple as counting the time between when the machine was first reported down, to when it was reported to be back up. However, since we're only allowed to count certain time ranges within a day as operational downtime, we need a way to essentially "mask out" the non-operational hours. This can be done efficiently by finding the intersection of various time ranges and summing the duration of each of these intersections.

In the case of PostgreSQL, I would start by creating a tsrange (timestamp range) that encompases the entire time range that the machine was down. I would then create multiple tsranges (one for each day the machine was down), limited to each day's operational hours. For each one of these operational hour ranges I would then take the intersection of it against the entire downtime range, and sum the duration of each of these intersecting time ranges to get the amount of operational downtime for the machine.

PostgreSQL has a number of range functions and operators that can make this very easy and efficient. In this example I would make use of the '*' operator to determine what part of two time ranges intersect, and then subtract the upper-bound (using the upper() range function) of that range intersection with its lower-bound (using the lower() range function) to get the time duration of only the "overlapping" parts of the two time ranges.

Here's a list of functions and operators that can be used on range types:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/functions-range.html

Hope this helps.

You can emulate nested transactions using save points. A client uses that in production. And others in unit tests.

Migrations are kind of a different beast. In that case I just stand up a test environment in Docker that does what it needs, then just trash it once things have been tested/verified.

I have not done this so it’s theorycrafting but can’t you do the following?

1. Have a local data dir with initial state

2. Create an overlayfs with a temporary directory

3. Launch your job in your docker container with the overlayfs bind mount as your data directory

4. That’s it. Writes go to the overlay and the base directory is untouched

How about do the changes then bake them into the DB docker image. I.e. "docker commit".

Then spin up the dB using that image instead of an empty one for every test run.

This implies starting the DB through docker is faster than what you're doing now of course.