A developer tested vibe coding for an audio streaming system in C++, despite being openly anti-vibe coding. Using LLMs like Claude, the result was a functional but bloated 2,100-line codebase—compared to a typical sub-100-line solution. The generated code was a statistical average, lacking integration awareness for the target tessera renderer.

The real cost wasn't the output, but the maintenance. Inheriting this probabilistic average code means debugging and reading unfamiliar logic, which took more time than writing it manually. For beginners, this creates a dangerous illusion that coding is the hard part, when the true challenge lies in problem-solving and system integration.

Ultimately, the developer advocates using LLMs as a tool, not a replacement for critical thinking. Vibe coding's marketing promotes a 'brainless' approach that harms newcomers. The experiment confirmed that without deep understanding, generated code becomes a liability, not an asset, reinforcing that skilled developers still need to read, debug, and own their systems.