[dwb]

What is this obsession with specifications? For a start it’s certainly not fair to assume an LLM has translated it into correct code, even if there is one reasonable way to do so, and there probably isn’t. I like a good, well-targeted spec as much as anyone, but come on. A spec detailed enough to describe a program is more-or-less the program but written in a non-executable language. I want to review the code, not a spec.

[xantronix]

I can't help but think that the logical conclusion of spec-first development is a return to Waterfall methodology. The amount of rigour required almost entirely negates the speed advantages of LLMs, even in the hands of seasoned developers. Unless the stakeholders are external, there will always be that necessary organisational bottleneck; of course, the C-suite could always decide to foist project management entirely on individual contributors, or take it on themselves, but I see that ending either in burnout or eventual neglect. All in the service of being on the forefront of adoption, and for what end?

[dwb]

Yeah, agree. Either that or this idea of not reviewing the code at all takes hold, abdicating human engineering responsibility to the machines, until some big stupid disaster or when it’s Too Late.

[whattheheckheck]

Is the teleological fight. Do swe decide what the purpose of the system is or do non technical people?

Intention flows are important

[dwb]

I’m not talking about which humans decide the purpose of the system, or even which humans engineer the system once designed at a higher level. I’m worried about leaving crucial decisions and understanding to LLMs, with humans just stepping back.