7 min read
|
Saved February 14, 2026
|
Copied!
Do you care about this?
The article discusses the author's experience with AI tools in programming, emphasizing skepticism about their hype while exploring practical use cases. It critiques the notion of "vibe coding" and advocates for understanding AI's role without losing sight of core development goals. The author shares insights on effective workflows and the importance of hands-on learning.
If you do, here's more
Alberto Varela shares his hands-on experience with AI tools in programming, emphasizing a pragmatic approach over the buzzwords that often overshadow the conversation. He points out the trend of naming various coding practices involving AI—like Vibe Coding and Agentic Coding—but finds this terminology unnecessary. For him, the focus should remain on the actual goal: using AI as a tool to enhance software development, not as a way to measure success by the amount of code typed by hand.
Varela critiques the prevailing narrative that AI will eliminate the need for developers, arguing that such predictions often come from those removed from day-to-day coding. He notes that although AI can help tackle technical debt and enable more experimentation, these benefits don't replace the essential skills and workflows involved in software development. He raises concerns about the sustainability of AI hype, particularly regarding resource consumption, and stresses the importance of staying informed about AI tools to remain relevant in the industry.
On a practical level, Varela describes his current use of AI tools like Cursor and Claude Code, highlighting that his methods will likely evolve as technology advances. He stresses that not every coding task benefits from AI; in many cases, manual work is faster and more accurate, especially when developers have deep knowledge of their codebases. He illustrates this with his experience building a pet project, where he balanced using AI for certain tasks while maintaining an active role in writing code to enhance his learning.
Questions about this article
No questions yet.