You mean pure handcoding?

Y'all gonna be handcoding like plebs while I'm at home pumping out local ai code on my super cluster like a g.

wonder if the future will be more handcoding again, better for our skills anyways :)

ok handcoding slave take 10 years for every system u make

personally I think handcoding neovim plugins is more respectable than vibecoding a "small game engine" TUI in javascript🤡

we're all so focused on vibecoding instead of making handcoding so good you don't need to vibecode, now nobody knows what's in their codebase

cause I kept handcoding G code

Its so fun building the marketing website for the bootcamps. I like how its an AI bootcamp but I still build the website completely my handcoding.

started handcoding a tui game and man i am rusty. i did not think i free riding AI that hard but lmao

The human brain is a giant kludge. We knew that already. When it comes to seeing that giant messes can do cognition, LLMs add nothing. Some have claimed I am salty about LLMs refuting my ideal of clean cognition. They are MAKING. SHIT. UP. There has long been a debate about to what extent the messiness of HUMAN MINDS implies that we shouldn't bother looking for any underlying principles of intelligence that are simpler than a whole human brain. Eg: If there exists any compact theory of cognition, why isn't there a short program that implements intelligence; and then why didn't natural selection find that short program earlier, and scale up brains to human sizes much earlier in evolutionary history? To this the observed messiness of LLMs adds very little, at least if you just go on the naked fact that LLMs are messy. Human brains are messy too and we already knew about that. There was SEPARATELY a debate, which started around 70 years ago, about whether particular very simple logic-processing programs then called "AI", were stripping away far too much complexity for that entire line of research to ever possibly work out. After all, human brains weren't like that. People who said "I bet that will never work" in that second debate, who were skeptical about the program then known as Good-Old-Fashioned AI, included Douglas Hofstadter, who was a major influence on me; and who was influenced by Drew McDermott's "Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity", which I looked up and which also had a big influence on me. At several points in the Sequences I argue for this anti-GOFAI position -- though I had little new to add to what my seniors had already said, on this particular topic. I went over it anyway, because I thought that understanding why GOFAI did not work as cognition, and had been overestimated by its inventors, could illustrate some useful general lessons about cognition and invention. There was likewise a debate about to what extent the failure of the GOFAI program, weighed on whether there was any point in looking for principles of intelligence simpler than a brain. The ongoing failure of GOFAI had ALREADY BEEN OBSERVED by 1996 when I showed up, and I and many others had already updated on it; albeit Robin Hanson in 2008 still considered Cyc a running concern. But the notion of a "principle of intelligence" that does NOT map onto a tiny logic program is MORE ABSTRACTION than IDIOTS ON THE INTERNET CAN HANDLE. I am tired and I do not plan to try to re-explain in detail the difference between a "principle of intelligence" and a tiny little logic-processing computer program. I know that THEY are too bad at handling abstractions to ever understand that. If you don't already understand the difference? Then forget for now that there was ever a debate about something called "principles of intelligence". We were debating about the Foograh of Murbledinks and there is no need for now to understand what that meant. You just need to understand that what we were debating was NOT the little programs processing suggestively named LISP tokens using various logic variants. That debate had nothing to do with those little programs. I was, before LLMs, already part of the position that said, "Those little logic programs are the wrong path and they will never work." Also I happened to take a different complicated nuanced position on an entirely different issue, which may be too abstract for someone to ever understand if they were confusing that other issue with little logic programs. Someone confused in that way will is entirely unable to relate that other issue to LLMs. They cannot operate abstractions of that level to see what those abstractions predict or forbid. You should ignore anything someone tries to say about LLMs refuting something they derogate as "clean principles of reasoning" or whatever, if they are confusing the existence of an explanation for why reasoning works, with little logic programs. One need only remember: When it comes to messiness or NOT being a clean logic program, LLMs add no marginal evidence beyond the prior observation of vastly complicated and messy human brains. That messiness was known and understood and processed into the real debate about that other issue; and had been observed long before I came on the scene. The evidence of human brains was already included in the conversation about that other abstract thing, among the subfactions of that faction that were sensible enough to shrug aside the little logic programs; people like McDermott and Hofstadter, and much later me. Perhaps somewhere on Earth there is a fool who is salty about how messy LLMs succeeded, because *they* thought it was going to be a neat program processing suggestively-named LISP tokens using a clever logic variant. That person is not me. I talk about the folly of the little logical programs in the Sequences. In the Foom Debate I argued to Robin Hanson that handcoding large amounts of knowledge into a logical representation framework like Douglas Lenat's Cyc was not a promising project. The people saying I endorsed the little logic programs MADE THAT SHIT UP. For that sounded cool to them and like it ought to be true, and they were ignorant of history and bad at abstractions. Call it the Logic Libel.

i feel like the drudgery of handcoding afforded you time to really chew on architecture, which now is a separate codeless experience. i’ll literally just sit there and think. sometimes to a little back and forth, couple documents. but just a whole lot of ponder

probably not as much as you think. shipping still beats optimizing your workflow. but if you’re handcoding everything forever, yeah that’ll slow you down.

Vibing didn't know how to solve the quadtree LOD chunk cracks between resolutions... I did. Still, I vibed my way through this entire thing. I can't imagine handcoding anymore, it's delusional github.com/alexthegoodman/en…

Back on it. 1. Solved 2 Leetcode Questions - one of them was "LC3583 Count Special Triplets" --> loved the double map approach --> felt like "prefix sum with map" 2. Did some basic FastAPI handcoding for learning. Github @ github.com/rohan-g0re/

Most people learning handcoding via youtube werentvreally gonna do it anyway

UPDATE: D-Day is here. My self-set countdown is UP & I still dont have a job. I have failed miserably in the target. Nevertheless, I think I am supposed to keep on going with job search, LeetCode, Handcoding, Hackathons and System Design. GOD is Great⚡

Handcoding is the way to go!!

If you call yourself a top coder, you're not a top coder. It's not mid 2025 anymore, AI is decently good at writing code now, especially GPT-5.5. This was a take that might have flown in 2024 and part of 2025, not 2026. Handcoding is DEAD. It's over.

handcoding never went away people just remembered that code you can read beats code you pray over