The problem is that this approach implements features quickly but in a way that conflicts with the team's mental model, ultimately ruining the entire codebase.

A lot of blog posts initially framed this as a problem. I agreed to some extent.

But as I've gained more programming experience, I've come to realize that all programs degrade over time until they are reborn. Eventually, it seems that destructive innovation is necessary for longevity. And sometimes, new patterns emerge from that kind of disruptive feature development.

So you could say that AI rockstar developers and AI-driven development are close to being a "tactical tornado" because their codebases are bad, with poor maintainability and reliability.

Maintainable development, in my experience as a traveling contract developer, usually refers to code that is well-modularized and well-crafted, making it easy for someone like me to understand the codebase when I come on board. But when I saw the leaked Claude code, frankly, the code quality was disappointing—yet by my standards, it worked very well.

So I've changed my mind lately. I think we actually need a new classification of developer types: those who love creating new things but are bad at maintenance, versus those who are conservative, good at maintenance, and build beautiful code.

What makes me think not too badly of recent AI-Rockstar(or AI vibe)developers is that as any industry becomes more advanced, it becomes harder for stars to emerge. Work gets divided and specialized, and no single individual can master everything. For example, I'm confident in writing 60,000–90,000 lines of code by combining frameworks based on IoC (Inversion of Control). But I'm weak at large-scale programming like distributed systems or low-level programming. That's the difference in expertise. I'm strong at the macro level but weak at the micro level. You become cognitively optimized for your own domain.

vibe coding developers(or AI star developer)since AI is still far from being highly advanced—produce messy code, but they definitely bring a new kind of shock. And when you look at their internal structure, many developers mock them. This reminds me of Undertale. Undertale's code is full of if statements and an enormous number of branches—honestly, it seemed like the developer didn't even know the basics of coding. Yet that game became a historic success. The same goes for programming. Some people make the code components beautiful and efficient, while others focus on delivering what the end consumer wants.

So these days, I even think that the more AI developers create bad software using AI, the more new jobs will emerge to maintain that software. Everything always has two sides, it seems.

And in a way, maintainability means knowing how that feature fits into the overall shape and UX of the product. With new products, that prediction is often impossible