I’ve been watching this fascinating debate unfold across developer communities about what we should call the tools and processes in vibe coding. Some people get downright religious about terminology, while others just want to get stuff done. Honestly, it reminds me of those endless arguments about whether it’s “soda” or “pop” – except here, we’re talking about the future of how we build software.
The core tension I see is between traditional engineering mindsets and this new paradigm where we’re describing intentions rather than writing instructions. When we talk about “Vibe Builders” – those AI systems that assemble software from our prompts – some folks instinctively reach for familiar terms like “compilers” or “IDEs.” But here’s the thing: these aren’t just smarter compilers. They’re something fundamentally different, and the language we use matters because it shapes how we think about the process.
Take the principle that Code is Capability, Intentions and Interfaces are Long-term Assets. This isn’t just a cute phrase – it fundamentally changes what we consider valuable. In traditional programming, the source code files were the assets. In vibe coding, those generated files might be disposable, while the prompts and interface specifications become the real intellectual property. That’s why calling these systems “builders” rather than “generators” or “assemblers” feels more accurate to me – they’re constructing something durable from temporary components.
I’ve seen teams struggle with this terminology shift in real projects. One startup I advised kept referring to their vibe building process as “AI-assisted coding,” but their metrics showed they were still treating the AI output like traditional code – reviewing every line, manually tweaking implementations, and getting bogged down in details. When they shifted their language to talk about “intention refinement” and “capability assembly,” their productivity literally doubled within weeks. The words changed how they approached the work.
The debate gets even more interesting when we consider that Everyone Programs, Professional Governance. If business managers and domain experts are going to participate in software creation, we need terminology that makes sense to them too. “Vibe Builder” resonates differently than “AI code generator” – it suggests collaboration and creative construction rather than technical execution.
What really excites me, though, is how this terminology debate reflects the larger shift From Software Engineering to Software Ecosystem. We’re not just building individual applications anymore – we’re participating in evolving ecosystems of capabilities. The language of “builders” and “assemblers” and “orchestrators” matters because it helps us think at the right level of abstraction.
So where do you land in this terminology debate? Are we overthinking the words, or is getting the language right crucial for adopting this new way of building software? Maybe the answer depends on whether you see vibe coding as an incremental improvement or a fundamental paradigm shift. Personally, I think the words we choose reveal what we believe is possible.