As part of the survey, everybody had the chance to add a few sentences explaining their stance. This was not a compulsory field, but to my surprise, only 3 of the 62 left it empty (thanks everybody). Before getting into the sentiment analysis, I noticed something quite interesting while filtering the data. People with a negative attitude had much more to say, and their responses were significantly longer than the other group. They wrote an average of 59 words while the others barely 37 and I think is a good indication of the emotional investment of people who want to articulate and explain their point. Let’s now look at what the different groups of people replied.
Positive responders often embraced vibe coding as a way to break free from rigid programming structures and instead explore, improvise, and experiment creatively.
“It puts no pressure on it being perfect or thorough.”
“Pursuing the vibe, trying what works and then adapt.”
“Coding can be geeky and laborious… ‘vibing’ is quite nice.”
This perspective repositions code not as rigid infrastructure, but something that favors creativity and playfulness over precision.
Several answers point to vibe coding as a democratizing force opening up coding to a broader audience, who want to build without going through the traditional gatekeeping of engineering culture.
“For every person complaining… there are ten who are dabbling in code and programming, building stuff without permission.”
“Bridges creative with technical perfectly, thus creating potential for independence.”
This group often used words like “freedom,” “reframing,” and “revolution.”.
As shown in the initial LinkedIn poll, 27% of respondents expressed mixed feelings. When going through their responses, they recognised potential and were open to experimentation but they also had lingering doubts about the name, seriousness, and future usefulness.
“It’s still a hype or buzzword.”
“I have mixed feelings of fascination and scepticism.”
“Unsure about further developments.”
They were on the fence and were often enthusiastic about the capability, but wary of the framing.
Neutral responders also acknowledged that complex, polished, or production-level work still requires traditional approaches and framed vibe coding as an early-stage assistant, not a full solution.
“Nice tool, but not more than autocomplete on steroids.”
“Helps get setup quickly… but critical thinking is still a human job.”
“Great for prototyping, not enough to finalize product.”
Some respondents were indifferent to the term itself, viewing it more as a label or meme than a paradigm shift. For them, it doesn’t change the substance of what’s happening.
“At the end of the day they are just words. Are you able to accomplish what’s needed?”
“I think it’s been around forever, just now with a new name.”
These voices grounded the discussion in the terminology and I think they bring up a very important point that leads to the polarisation of a lot of the conversations around “vibe coding”.
Many respondents expressed concern that vibe coding implies a casual, unstructured approach to coding. This was often linked to fears about poor code quality, bugs, and security issues.
“Feels like building a house without knowing how electricity and water systems work.”
“Without fundamental knowledge… you quickly lose control over the output.”
The term was also seen as dismissive or diminishing the value of skilled developers. It really rubbed people the wrong way, especially those with professional experience.
“It downplays the skill and intention behind writing a functional, efficient program.”
“Vibe coding implies not understanding what the AI does but still micromanaging it.”
Like for “neutral” respondents, there’s a strong mistrust around how the term is used (especially on social media) where it’s seen as fueling unrealistic expectations or being pushed by non-experts.
“Used to promote coding without knowledge.”
“Just another overhyped term like NFTs or memecoins.”
“It feels like a joke that went too far.”
Ultimately, I decided to compare attitudes that are excited (positive) and accepting (neutral) of vibe coding vs. those that reject or criticise it. After all, even among people who were neutral, there was a general acceptance that vibe coding has its place. Many saw it as a useful tool for things like prototyping, creative exploration, or simply making it easier to get started. What really stood out, though, was the absence of fear that was very prominent in the “negative” group and saw vibe coding as a threat to software quality or professional identity.
People in the neutral and positive groups generally see potential. They view it as useful for prototyping, creative exploration, or making coding more accessible, but they still recognise the need for structure in complex systems. In contrast, the negative group rejects the concept outright, and not just the name, but what it stands for: a more casual, less rigorous approach to coding. Their opinion is often rooted in defending software engineering as a disciplined craft… and probably their job.
😍 “As long as you understand the result and the process, AI can write and fix scripts much faster than humans can.”
🤮 “It’s a joke. It started as a joke… but to me doesn’t encapsulate actual AI co-engineering.”
On the topic of skill and control, the neutral and positive group sees AI as a helpful assistant, assuming that a human is still guiding the process. They mention refining and reviewing as normal parts of the workflow. The negative group sees more danger, fearing that vibe coding gives a false sense of competence. They describe it as producing buggy or shallow results, often in the hands of inexperienced users.
😑 “Critical thinking is still a human job… but vibe coding helps with fast results.”
🤮“Vibe-Coding takes away the very features of a good developer… logical thinking and orchestration are crucial.”
Culturally, the divide is clear. The positive and neutral voices often embrace vibe coding as part of a broader shift, welcoming new types of creators and perspectives. They tend to come from design or interdisciplinary backgrounds and are more comfortable with playful language. On the other hand, the negative group associates the term with hype and cringe, criticising it as disrespectful to those who’ve spent years honing their technical skills.
😍“It’s about playful, relaxed creation — for the love of making something.”
🤮Creating a lot of unsafe bloatware with no proper planning.”