🧑‍💻 Coder vs Vibe coder

on February 11, 2026

For a long time, the distinction between a good developer and a mediocre one was based on classic criteria: code readability, architecture, performance, and testing. These criteria remain valid. But they are no longer sufficient to describe what is emerging.

With the arrival of tools like Cursor, another posture becomes visible: that of the vibe coder.

This isn't a new profession. Nor is it "coding with AI." It's a shift in the center of gravity.

The coder: code as an entry point

The “traditional” coder works in an environment where:

  • Files are central * The directory tree is the map of the territory * The IDE is a precision instrument

The logic is as follows:

The problem is understood → the code is written → the result emerges

In this position:

  • The code is the source of truth. * The tool (IDE, AI, terminal) is an accelerator. * The intention is translated manually into structure.

This approach is robust, deterministic, and effective for well-defined problems. It remains indispensable.

The Vibe Coder: Intention as the Entry Point

With AI-enhanced FDI, another stance emerges.

In Cursor, a simple detail becomes revealing: the fact of placing the AI ​​agent on the left and the files on the right.

Before

After

This change is not cosmetic.

It represents an inversion:

  • The main interface becomes conversational * Files become a projection * Code is no longer the starting point, but the result

The reasoning becomes:

I express an intention → I validate a direction → the code aligns

What really changes

The difference does not lie in:

  • the language * the framework * the syntax

It lies in what guides the action.

The vibe coder doesn't "let go" of the technique. He deliberately delays it.

The code becomes a consequence, not a proof.

In a vibe-based approach:

  • Competence is no longer proven by code complexity * It is proven by the consistency of the result * The code is disposable, rewritable, adjustable

What matters:

  • Clarity of intent * Speed ​​of convergence * Ability to correct course without excessive attachment to implementation

Code ceases to be a sacred artifact. It becomes a medium of materialization.

Cursor is not the cause, it is the revealer

Important: Cursor does not create vibe coding.

It makes it visible.

He explains:

  • a persistent memory of context * a continuity of intention * a space where thought precedes structure

The change in layout (agent on the left, files on the right) acts as a cognitive trigger:

It is no longer the code that guides thought, > it is thought that guides the code.

The coder and the vibe coder are not opposed

They are not competitors. They are complementary.

  • The encoder excels at stabilization * The vibe encoder excels at exploration * One solidifies * The other orients

In complex systems, both are necessary. But ignoring the emergence of vibe coding means missing a major shift: the one where intention becomes the primary primitive of development.

Conclusion

The Vibe Encoder does not replace the encoder. It simply shifts the center of gravity.

  • From code to intent * From implementation to experience * From tool to cognitive flow

Code remains essential. It is simply no longer the starting point.