Nov 27, 2025
A developer recently shared this honest assessment of their AI-assisted build experience: "I spent 100 minutes building, and 60% of that was pointing out bugs."
Sixty percent. That's 60 minutes spent not in creative flow, not iterating on features, not thinking about user experience. Just pointing at broken code and asking an AI to fix what it just created.
This isn't an isolated experience. Across the vibe coding community, developers are discovering a painful truth: the time economics of AI-assisted development look very different in practice than they do in the demo videos.
The problem isn't that AI is bad at coding. It's that building complex features from scratch requires context, consistency, and careful state management across multiple components. Every time you prompt for a new feature, the AI is essentially starting fresh.
One developer explained their approach: "I find generating individual components better for bigger scale development. It'll be slower, but it's generally more stable." This wisdom reflects a hard-learned lesson. Small, isolated components work because they have limited surface area for errors. But real applications need features like chat, file sharing, notifications, and real-time updates. These aren't simple components. They're complex systems with edge cases, state synchronization, and error handling that AI tools consistently struggle with.
Another developer noted: "I had success with mine but a lot of people tend to have issues with more complex builds." The pattern is clear: simple demos work great. Production features? That's where the 60% debugging tax kicks in.
The community discussions reveal an uncomfortable pattern. One developer described their Replit experience: "I believe it was last month that replit 'upgraded' and it broke both of my apps completely. I had hundreds in overages just to get them back to where they are now."
Another shared: "If you don't 1-shot your build, you're stuck with a messy, brittle codebase. Maintenance is a nightmare: adding one feature breaks three others."
This is the invisible tax. You're not just paying for the initial build time. You're paying for:
One developer summed it up perfectly: "Learning the harder tool once is always cheaper than fighting the easier tool forever." But there's an even better option: not fighting at all.
Let's talk about what happens when you try to build collaboration features from scratch. You need:
Each of these has dozens of edge cases. What happens when a user loses connection mid-upload? How do you handle message ordering when multiple users type simultaneously? What's your strategy for file size limits and malicious uploads?
AI tools can generate code that handles the happy path. But production features live in the edge cases. That's where your 60% debugging time goes. You're essentially paying to QA test and fix AI-generated code that was never properly tested in the first place.
As one developer observed: "You need to start with AI, finish with engineers." The question is: what if you could skip the messy middle entirely for certain types of features?
Here's where the time economics shift dramatically. When you're building collaboration features like chat, messaging, activity feeds, or file sharing, you're not working on your core product differentiation. You're rebuilding infrastructure that's been solved hundreds of times.
This is where Weavy changes the equation. Instead of spending 60% of your time debugging AI-generated collaboration features, you drop in pre-built, tested components that actually work.
The components handle all those edge cases you'd spend weeks debugging:
More importantly, these components are designed to accept context from your AI workflows. You're not abandoning vibe coding. You're using it where it shines (your unique product features) and dropping in stable infrastructure where you'd otherwise waste tokens and time.
One developer captured the frustration perfectly: "Maintenance is a nightmare: adding one feature breaks three others." That's what happens with from-scratch collaboration features. Pre-built components don't have that problem because they've already been through thousands of production deployments.
The real cost isn't just time. It's the cognitive load of switching contexts. Every time you have to stop building and start debugging, you lose flow state. You go from creator to quality assurance tester.
A developer described their ideal workflow: "My experience with it, one step at a time is better, for multiple reasons. You are in control and know what being added created. Easier to test features." This is smart incremental development. But it still assumes you're building everything from scratch.
What if your workflow looked like this instead:
One developer noted about their agent-based tool: "Mostly bug fixes and small tweaks. I tried to build a feature with it, but it told me it didn't have the autonomy to do what I asked, so I had to switch back to regular build mode. It has tricked me into spending more money."
That's the token waste problem. You're burning through API credits asking AI to fix the same collaboration features over and over. Meanwhile, those same features exist as tested, production-ready components you could implement in minutes.
A developer made this observation: "The ability to 'speak things into existence' is the superpower here. And the calculus of build vs buy is needing to be reconsidered."
They're right, but perhaps not in the way most people think. The new calculus isn't "AI makes building so easy that you should build everything." It's "AI makes your unique features easier to build, so stop wasting time on infrastructure that's already been solved."
Another developer shared: "Like I said, I spend a lot of time on perfecting the tiniest unwanted things. I wrapped up the initial build pretty fast, but then I went down the rabbit hole." This is the trap. AI makes the first 80% feel fast. Then you spend 300% more time on the last 20% because you're debugging from scratch.
The smarter approach: use AI for your 80%, use pre-built components for collaboration features, and actually ship instead of debugging.
If you're starting a new project, think carefully about where you spend your debugging time. One developer noted: "Just trying to focus on how we can make a design first builder. Nothing much besides that." That focus is valuable. Don't dilute it by rebuilding chat systems.
Another shared: "More than building, what demotivates all devs is that it doesn't take off and then dies a slow death. Marketing and keeping a steady stream of growth is critical." They're absolutely right. You know what doesn't help with marketing and growth? Spending 60% of your time fixing bugs in features that don't differentiate your product.
Vibe coding is powerful for unique product features. But when you try to build complex collaboration infrastructure from scratch, you end up paying a 60% debugging tax. That's 60% of your time, 60% of your tokens, and 60% of your cognitive energy that could go toward features that actually matter.
The developers who ship fastest aren't necessarily the ones who build everything from scratch. They're the ones who know when to build and when to integrate. They use AI for differentiation and pre-built components for infrastructure.
Your flow state is valuable. Your tokens are expensive. Your time is limited. Stop debugging chat systems and start building features your users actually care about.
Try the Weavy vibe prompt: https://www.weavy.com/get-started
To access live chat with our developer success team you need a Weavy account.
