Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fabianlindfors 248 days ago
The note on how all those tools seem to mostly be spec-first and vague about spec maintenance was interesting to me. Me and my cofounder have been going all-in on spec-as-source, as we think it's really the most interesting use of specs, but it's also challenging to get of the ground. If anybody has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.

Also in case somebody wants to try a spec-as-source tool, we'd love feedback: https://specific.dev
1 comments
conartist6 248 days ago
if the spec is truly the source, it's because you've invented a formal programming language that evaluates the spec.

Anything short of that and the spec is the spec, the source is the source.

Now you get to learn about what good code looks like, like the rest of us!

link
fabianlindfors 248 days ago
With that, I was referring to the definition in the article: "The spec is the main source file over time, and only the spec is edited by the human, the human never touches the code". That's how Specific works.

And I think that opens up a very interesting question about quality. If the human never touches the code, then "good code" gets replaced with "good specs" instead, and I don't think anybody knows what constitutes good specs in that context right now!

link
conartist6 247 days ago
That is just so at odds with my way of thinking. The code is the spec -- the only spec that matters. The only way of describing the behavior that everyone can agree on the meaning of.

A design document can add color, but only the code tells you what the application does

link