LLMs don't lack the virtue of laziness: it has it if you want it to, by just having a base prompt that matches intent. I've had good success convincing claude backed agents to aim for minimal code changes, make deduplication passes, and basically every other reasonable "instinct" of a very senior dev. It's not knowledge that the models haven't integrated, but one that many don't have on their forefront with default settings. I bet we've all seen the models that over-edit everything, and act like the crazy mid-level dev that fiddles with the entire codebase without caring one bit about anyone else's changes, or any risk of knowledge loss due to overfiddling.
And on Jess' comments on validating docs vs generating them... It's a traditional locking problem, with traditional solutions. And it's not as if the agent cannot read git, and realize when one thing is done first, in anticipation of the other by convention.
I'm quite senior: In fact, I have been a teammate of a couple of people mention in this article. I suspect that they'd not question my engineering standards. And yet I've no seen any of that kind of debt in my LLM workflows: if anything, by most traditional forms of evaluating software quality, the projects I work on are better than what they were 5, 10 years ago, using the same metrics as back then. And it's not magic or anything, but making sure there are agents running sharing those quality priorities. But I am getting work done, instead of spending time looking for attention in conferences.
> if anything, by most traditional forms of evaluating software quality, the projects I work on are better than what they were 5, 10 years ago, using the same metrics as back then.
In this side sentence you're introducing so much vagueness. Can you share insights to get some validation on your claim? What metrics are you using and how is your code from 10, 5, 0 years performing?
I feel throwing in a vague claim like that unnecessarily dilutes your message and distracts from the point. But, if you do have more to share I'd be curious to learn more.
The anecdote the GP is providing there rings true for me too - although I'm not sure if I am going offer better detail.
I'm a proponent of architectural styles like MVC, SOLID, hexagonal architecture, etc, and in pre-LLM workflows, "human laziness" often led to technical debt: a developer might lazily leak domain logic into a controller or skip writing an interface just to save time.
The code I get the LLM to emit is a lot more compliant with those BUT there is a caveat that the LLMs do have a habit of "forgetting" the specific concerns of the given file/package/etc, and I frequently have to remind it.
The "metric" improvement isn't that the LLM is a better architect than a senior dev; it's that it reduces the cost of doing things the right way. The delta between "quick and dirty" and "cleanly architected" has shrunk to near zero, so the "clean" version becomes the path of least resistance.
I'm seeing less "temporary" kludges because the LLM almost blindly follows my requests
I don't think I'd like your code. But apparently there's enough implied YAGNI in my CLAUDE.md to prevent the unnecessary interfaces and layers of separation that you apparently like. So I guess there is a flavor for everyone.
I often say to Claude "you're doing X when I want Y, how can I get you to follow the Y path without fail" and Claude will respond with "Edit my claude.md to include the following" which I then ask Claude to do.
I see what Martin is saying here, but you could make that argument for moving up the abstraction layers at any point. Assembly to Python creates a lot of Intent & Cognitive debt by his definition, because you didn't think through how to manipulate the bits on the hardware, you just allowed the interpereter to do it.
My counter is that technical intent, in the way he is describing it, only exists because we needed to translate human intent into machine language. You can still think deeply about problems without needed to formulate them as domain driven abstractions in code. You could mind map it, or journal about it, or put post-it notes all over the wall. Creating object oriented abstractions isn't magic.
Translating your intent into a formal language is a tool of thought in itself. It’s by that process that you uncover the ambiguities, the aspects and details you didn’t consider, maybe even that the approach as a whole has to be reconsidered. While writing in natural language can also be a tool of thought, there is an essential element in aligning one’s thought process with a formal language that doesn’t allow for any vagueness or ambiguity.
It’s similar to how doing math in natural language without math notation is cumbersome and error-prone.
Agree: house architects have their language (architectural plans) to translate people needs in non ambiguous informations that will be useful for those who build the house. Musician uses musical notes, physician uses schemas to represent molecules, etc... And programmers use programming languages, when we write a line of code we don't hope that the compiler will understand what we write. Musical notes are a kind of abstraction: higher level than audio frequency but lower level than natural language. Same for programming language. Getting rid of all the formal languages take us back 2000 years ago.
Using a formal language also help to enter in a kind of flow. And then details you did not think about before using the formal language may appear. Everything cannot be prompted, just like Alex Honnold prepared his climbing of El Capitan very carefully but it's only when he was on the rock that he took the real decisions. Same for Lindbergh when he crossed the Atlantic. The map is not the territory.
So you need to find something better. In an article "How NASA writes 'perfect' software (1996) (fastcompany.com)" (comments on HN), the author explains that adding GPS support required 1500 pages of spec, and to avoid ambiguity the spec used pseudo code to describe expected features and behaviors.
If you invent a formal language that is easy to read and easy to write, it may look like Python... Then someone will probably write an interpreter.
We have many languages, senior people who know how to use them, who enjoy coding and who don't have a "lack of productivity" problem. I don't feel the need to throw away everything we have to embrace what is supposed to be "the future". And since we need good devs to read and LLM generated code how to remain a good dev if we don't write code anymore ? What's the point of being up to date in language x if we don't write code ? Remaining good at something without doing it is a mystery to me.
> you didn't think through how to manipulate the bits on the hardware, you just allowed the interpreter to do it
If you are thinking through deterministic code, you are thinking through the manipulation of bits in hardware. You are just doing it in a language which is easier for humans to understand.
I like the word intent, but Martin Fowler’s essay made me think more carefully about it. When Thomas Kuhn talked about paradigm shifts, “paradigm” ended up carrying more than twenty different meanings. In the same way, I think intent has recently become one of the most polluted and overused words in programming. My own toy language project uses the word intent, so I am not really in a position to criticize others too harshly.
Reading the Hacker News comments, I kept thinking that programming is fundamentally about building mental models, and that the market, in the end, buys my mental model.
If we start from human intent, the chain might look something like this:
human intent
-> problem model
-> abstraction
-> language expression
-> compilation
-> change in hadrware
But abstraction and language expression are themselves subdivided into many layers. How much of those layers a programmer can afford not to know has a direct effect on that programmer’s position in the market. People often think of abstraction as something clean, but in reality it is incomplete and contextual. In theory it is always clean; in practice it is always breaking down.
Depending on which layer you live in, even when using the same programming language, the form of expression can become radically different. From that point of view, people casually bundle everything together and call it “abstraction” or “intent,” but in reality there is a gap between intent and abstraction, and another gap between abstraction and language expression. Those subtle friction points are not fully reducible.
Seen from that perspective, even if you write a very clear specification, there will always be something that does not reduce neatly. And perhaps the real difference between LLMs and humans lies in how they deal with that residue.
Martin frames the issue in a way that suggests LLM abstractions are bad, but I do not fully agree. As someone from a third-world country in Asia, I have seen a great deal of bad abstraction written in my own language and environment. In that sense, I often feel that LLM-generated code is actually much better than the average abstractions produced by my Asian peers. At the same time, when I look at really good programming from strong Western engineers, I find myself asking again what a good abstraction actually is.
The essay talks about TDD and other methodologies, but personally I think TDD can become one of the worst methodologies when the abstraction itself is broken. If the abstraction is wrong, do the tests really mean anything? I have seen plenty of cases where people kept chasing green tests while gradually destroying the architecture. I have seen this especially in systems involving databases.
The biggest problem with methodology is that it always tends to become dogma, as if it were something that must be obeyed. SOLID principles, for example, do not always need to be followed, but in some organizations they become almost religious doctrine. In UI component design, enforcing LSP too rigidly can actually damage the diversity and flexibility of the UI. In the end, perhaps what we call intent is really the ability to remain flexible in context and search for the best possible solution within that context.
From that angle, intent begins to look a lot like the reward-function-based learning of LLMs.
architecture is about the choices you will regret in this future if you get wrong today. You will regret not having testable code so tdd isn't bad - but that is not the whole storyand there are many things you will regret that tdd won't help with.
there is the famious bowling game tdd example where their result doesn't have a frame object and they argue they proved you don't need one. That is wrong though, the example took just a couple hours - there is nothing so bad in a a two hour program you will regret. If you were doing a real bowling system with pin setters, support for 50 lanes and a bunch of other things that I who don't work in that area don't even know about - you will find places to regret things.
You are right in that the code (or the formal model) alone isn’t sufficient, in that it doesn’t specify the context, requirements, design goals and design constraints. The formal and the informal level complement each other. But that’s also why it’s necessary to think at both levels when developing software. Withdrawing to just the informal level and letting LLMs handle the mapping to the formal level autonomously doesn’t work.
That being said, even model-based design (MBD) has largely been a failure, despite it being about mapping formal models to (formal-language) program code.
> Assembly to Python creates a lot of Intent & Cognitive debt by his definition, because you didn't think through how to manipulate the bits on the hardware, you just allowed the interpereter to do it
I agree! You often see this realized when projects slowly migrate to using more and more ctypes code to try and back out of that pit.
In a previous job, a project was spun up using Python because it was easier and the performance requirements weren't understood at that time. A year or two later it had become a bottleneck for tapeout, and when it was rewritten most of the abstract architecture was thrown out with it, since it was all Pythonic in a way that required a different approach in C++
I think Martin isn't wrong here, but I've first hand seen AI produce "lazy" code, where the answer was actually more code.
A concrete example, I had a set of python models that defined a database schema for a given set of logical concepts.
I added a new logical concept to the system, very analogous to the existing logical set. Claude decided that it should just re-use the existing model set, which worked in theory, but caused the consumers to have to do all sorts of gymnastics to do type inference at runtime. It "worked", but it was definitely the wrong layer of abstraction.
Is more code really bad? For humans, yes we want thing abstracted, but sometimes it may make more sense to actually repeat yourself. If a machine is writing and maintaining the code, do we need that extra layer now?
In the olden days we used Duff's devices and manually unrolled loops with duplicated code that we wrote ourselves.
Now, the compiler is "smart" enough to understand your intent and actually generates repeated assembly code that is duplicated. You don't care that it's duplicated because the compiler is doing it for you.
I've had some projects recently where I was using an LLM where I needed a few snippets of non-trivial computational geometry. In the old days, I'd have to go search for a library and get permission from compliance to import the library and then I'd have to convert my domain representations of stuff into the formats that library needed. All of that would have been cheaper than me writing the code myself, but it was non-trivial.
Now the LLM can write for me only the stuff I need (no extra big library to import) and it will use the data in the format I stored it in (no needing to translate data structures). The canon says the "right" way to do it would be to have a geometry library to prevent repeated code, but here I have a self contained function that "just works".
This kind of thinking only works as long as the machine can actually fix its own errors.
I've had several bugs that required manual intervention (yes, even with $YOUR_FAVORITE_MODEL -- I've tried them all at this point). After the first few sessions of deleting countless lines of pointless cruft, I quickly learned the benefits of preemptively trimming down the code by hand.
We have confidence in the extra code a compiler generates because it’s deterministic. We don’t have that in LLMs, neither those that wrote nor read the code.
> ...to develop the powerful abstractions that then allow us to do much more, much more easily. Of course, the implicit wink here is that it takes a lot of work to be lazy
This lines up with YAGNI, but most people believe the opposite, often using YAGNI to justify NOT building the necessary abstractions.
The counter-argument is that people build abstractions they deem necessary but aren't, and then they're married to that premature architecture quite often. That's what YAGNI is there to advise against.
I don't think what Fowler says here is in favor of saddling the early versions of your system with abstractions before you actually seen its use in practice, and its needs over time as requirements and conditions change.
From this "Laziness drives us to make the system as simple as possible (but no simpler!) — to develop the powerful abstractions that then allow us to do much more, much more easily." it's clear that when he talks of abstractions he means of very basic, and as simple as possible, building blocks. Like having core, orthogonal, principles in the system.
Not the kind of piling of software and pattern design abstractions e.g. the Java land in the past used to build.
LLMs don't lack the virtue of laziness: it has it if you want it to, by just having a base prompt that matches intent. I've had good success convincing claude backed agents to aim for minimal code changes, make deduplication passes, and basically every other reasonable "instinct" of a very senior dev. It's not knowledge that the models haven't integrated, but one that many don't have on their forefront with default settings. I bet we've all seen the models that over-edit everything, and act like the crazy mid-level dev that fiddles with the entire codebase without caring one bit about anyone else's changes, or any risk of knowledge loss due to overfiddling.
And on Jess' comments on validating docs vs generating them... It's a traditional locking problem, with traditional solutions. And it's not as if the agent cannot read git, and realize when one thing is done first, in anticipation of the other by convention.
I'm quite senior: In fact, I have been a teammate of a couple of people mention in this article. I suspect that they'd not question my engineering standards. And yet I've no seen any of that kind of debt in my LLM workflows: if anything, by most traditional forms of evaluating software quality, the projects I work on are better than what they were 5, 10 years ago, using the same metrics as back then. And it's not magic or anything, but making sure there are agents running sharing those quality priorities. But I am getting work done, instead of spending time looking for attention in conferences.
I agree with your sentiment here. However:
> if anything, by most traditional forms of evaluating software quality, the projects I work on are better than what they were 5, 10 years ago, using the same metrics as back then.
In this side sentence you're introducing so much vagueness. Can you share insights to get some validation on your claim? What metrics are you using and how is your code from 10, 5, 0 years performing?
I feel throwing in a vague claim like that unnecessarily dilutes your message and distracts from the point. But, if you do have more to share I'd be curious to learn more.
The anecdote the GP is providing there rings true for me too - although I'm not sure if I am going offer better detail.
I'm a proponent of architectural styles like MVC, SOLID, hexagonal architecture, etc, and in pre-LLM workflows, "human laziness" often led to technical debt: a developer might lazily leak domain logic into a controller or skip writing an interface just to save time.
The code I get the LLM to emit is a lot more compliant with those BUT there is a caveat that the LLMs do have a habit of "forgetting" the specific concerns of the given file/package/etc, and I frequently have to remind it.
The "metric" improvement isn't that the LLM is a better architect than a senior dev; it's that it reduces the cost of doing things the right way. The delta between "quick and dirty" and "cleanly architected" has shrunk to near zero, so the "clean" version becomes the path of least resistance.
I'm seeing less "temporary" kludges because the LLM almost blindly follows my requests
I don't think I'd like your code. But apparently there's enough implied YAGNI in my CLAUDE.md to prevent the unnecessary interfaces and layers of separation that you apparently like. So I guess there is a flavor for everyone.
Mind sharing the instructions you give Claude to go for minimal code changes etc?
I often say to Claude "you're doing X when I want Y, how can I get you to follow the Y path without fail" and Claude will respond with "Edit my claude.md to include the following" which I then ask Claude to do.
Ah yea I do that too. I often have reflection sessions with Claude where I ask it "how can I make sure you do behavior X so we get outcome Y?"
It works relatively well but not always.
I see what Martin is saying here, but you could make that argument for moving up the abstraction layers at any point. Assembly to Python creates a lot of Intent & Cognitive debt by his definition, because you didn't think through how to manipulate the bits on the hardware, you just allowed the interpereter to do it.
My counter is that technical intent, in the way he is describing it, only exists because we needed to translate human intent into machine language. You can still think deeply about problems without needed to formulate them as domain driven abstractions in code. You could mind map it, or journal about it, or put post-it notes all over the wall. Creating object oriented abstractions isn't magic.
Translating your intent into a formal language is a tool of thought in itself. It’s by that process that you uncover the ambiguities, the aspects and details you didn’t consider, maybe even that the approach as a whole has to be reconsidered. While writing in natural language can also be a tool of thought, there is an essential element in aligning one’s thought process with a formal language that doesn’t allow for any vagueness or ambiguity.
It’s similar to how doing math in natural language without math notation is cumbersome and error-prone.
Agree: house architects have their language (architectural plans) to translate people needs in non ambiguous informations that will be useful for those who build the house. Musician uses musical notes, physician uses schemas to represent molecules, etc... And programmers use programming languages, when we write a line of code we don't hope that the compiler will understand what we write. Musical notes are a kind of abstraction: higher level than audio frequency but lower level than natural language. Same for programming language. Getting rid of all the formal languages take us back 2000 years ago.
Using a formal language also help to enter in a kind of flow. And then details you did not think about before using the formal language may appear. Everything cannot be prompted, just like Alex Honnold prepared his climbing of El Capitan very carefully but it's only when he was on the rock that he took the real decisions. Same for Lindbergh when he crossed the Atlantic. The map is not the territory.
I agree, but that formal language doesn't need to be executable code.
So you need to find something better. In an article "How NASA writes 'perfect' software (1996) (fastcompany.com)" (comments on HN), the author explains that adding GPS support required 1500 pages of spec, and to avoid ambiguity the spec used pseudo code to describe expected features and behaviors.
If you invent a formal language that is easy to read and easy to write, it may look like Python... Then someone will probably write an interpreter.
We have many languages, senior people who know how to use them, who enjoy coding and who don't have a "lack of productivity" problem. I don't feel the need to throw away everything we have to embrace what is supposed to be "the future". And since we need good devs to read and LLM generated code how to remain a good dev if we don't write code anymore ? What's the point of being up to date in language x if we don't write code ? Remaining good at something without doing it is a mystery to me.
> you didn't think through how to manipulate the bits on the hardware, you just allowed the interpreter to do it
If you are thinking through deterministic code, you are thinking through the manipulation of bits in hardware. You are just doing it in a language which is easier for humans to understand.
There is a direct mapping of intent.
AI is not an abstraction layer.
I like the word intent, but Martin Fowler’s essay made me think more carefully about it. When Thomas Kuhn talked about paradigm shifts, “paradigm” ended up carrying more than twenty different meanings. In the same way, I think intent has recently become one of the most polluted and overused words in programming. My own toy language project uses the word intent, so I am not really in a position to criticize others too harshly.
Reading the Hacker News comments, I kept thinking that programming is fundamentally about building mental models, and that the market, in the end, buys my mental model.
If we start from human intent, the chain might look something like this:
human intent -> problem model -> abstraction -> language expression -> compilation -> change in hadrware
But abstraction and language expression are themselves subdivided into many layers. How much of those layers a programmer can afford not to know has a direct effect on that programmer’s position in the market. People often think of abstraction as something clean, but in reality it is incomplete and contextual. In theory it is always clean; in practice it is always breaking down.
Depending on which layer you live in, even when using the same programming language, the form of expression can become radically different. From that point of view, people casually bundle everything together and call it “abstraction” or “intent,” but in reality there is a gap between intent and abstraction, and another gap between abstraction and language expression. Those subtle friction points are not fully reducible.
Seen from that perspective, even if you write a very clear specification, there will always be something that does not reduce neatly. And perhaps the real difference between LLMs and humans lies in how they deal with that residue.
Martin frames the issue in a way that suggests LLM abstractions are bad, but I do not fully agree. As someone from a third-world country in Asia, I have seen a great deal of bad abstraction written in my own language and environment. In that sense, I often feel that LLM-generated code is actually much better than the average abstractions produced by my Asian peers. At the same time, when I look at really good programming from strong Western engineers, I find myself asking again what a good abstraction actually is.
The essay talks about TDD and other methodologies, but personally I think TDD can become one of the worst methodologies when the abstraction itself is broken. If the abstraction is wrong, do the tests really mean anything? I have seen plenty of cases where people kept chasing green tests while gradually destroying the architecture. I have seen this especially in systems involving databases.
The biggest problem with methodology is that it always tends to become dogma, as if it were something that must be obeyed. SOLID principles, for example, do not always need to be followed, but in some organizations they become almost religious doctrine. In UI component design, enforcing LSP too rigidly can actually damage the diversity and flexibility of the UI. In the end, perhaps what we call intent is really the ability to remain flexible in context and search for the best possible solution within that context.
From that angle, intent begins to look a lot like the reward-function-based learning of LLMs.
architecture is about the choices you will regret in this future if you get wrong today. You will regret not having testable code so tdd isn't bad - but that is not the whole storyand there are many things you will regret that tdd won't help with.
there is the famious bowling game tdd example where their result doesn't have a frame object and they argue they proved you don't need one. That is wrong though, the example took just a couple hours - there is nothing so bad in a a two hour program you will regret. If you were doing a real bowling system with pin setters, support for 50 lanes and a bunch of other things that I who don't work in that area don't even know about - you will find places to regret things.
You are right in that the code (or the formal model) alone isn’t sufficient, in that it doesn’t specify the context, requirements, design goals and design constraints. The formal and the informal level complement each other. But that’s also why it’s necessary to think at both levels when developing software. Withdrawing to just the informal level and letting LLMs handle the mapping to the formal level autonomously doesn’t work.
That being said, even model-based design (MBD) has largely been a failure, despite it being about mapping formal models to (formal-language) program code.
> Assembly to Python creates a lot of Intent & Cognitive debt by his definition, because you didn't think through how to manipulate the bits on the hardware, you just allowed the interpereter to do it
I agree! You often see this realized when projects slowly migrate to using more and more ctypes code to try and back out of that pit.
In a previous job, a project was spun up using Python because it was easier and the performance requirements weren't understood at that time. A year or two later it had become a bottleneck for tapeout, and when it was rewritten most of the abstract architecture was thrown out with it, since it was all Pythonic in a way that required a different approach in C++
> The problem is that LLMs inherently lack the virtue of laziness.
I assure you, they do not.
I think Martin isn't wrong here, but I've first hand seen AI produce "lazy" code, where the answer was actually more code.
A concrete example, I had a set of python models that defined a database schema for a given set of logical concepts.
I added a new logical concept to the system, very analogous to the existing logical set. Claude decided that it should just re-use the existing model set, which worked in theory, but caused the consumers to have to do all sorts of gymnastics to do type inference at runtime. It "worked", but it was definitely the wrong layer of abstraction.
Is more code really bad? For humans, yes we want thing abstracted, but sometimes it may make more sense to actually repeat yourself. If a machine is writing and maintaining the code, do we need that extra layer now?
In the olden days we used Duff's devices and manually unrolled loops with duplicated code that we wrote ourselves.
Now, the compiler is "smart" enough to understand your intent and actually generates repeated assembly code that is duplicated. You don't care that it's duplicated because the compiler is doing it for you.
I've had some projects recently where I was using an LLM where I needed a few snippets of non-trivial computational geometry. In the old days, I'd have to go search for a library and get permission from compliance to import the library and then I'd have to convert my domain representations of stuff into the formats that library needed. All of that would have been cheaper than me writing the code myself, but it was non-trivial.
Now the LLM can write for me only the stuff I need (no extra big library to import) and it will use the data in the format I stored it in (no needing to translate data structures). The canon says the "right" way to do it would be to have a geometry library to prevent repeated code, but here I have a self contained function that "just works".
This kind of thinking only works as long as the machine can actually fix its own errors.
I've had several bugs that required manual intervention (yes, even with $YOUR_FAVORITE_MODEL -- I've tried them all at this point). After the first few sessions of deleting countless lines of pointless cruft, I quickly learned the benefits of preemptively trimming down the code by hand.
We have confidence in the extra code a compiler generates because it’s deterministic. We don’t have that in LLMs, neither those that wrote nor read the code.
> ...to develop the powerful abstractions that then allow us to do much more, much more easily. Of course, the implicit wink here is that it takes a lot of work to be lazy
This lines up with YAGNI, but most people believe the opposite, often using YAGNI to justify NOT building the necessary abstractions.
The counter-argument is that people build abstractions they deem necessary but aren't, and then they're married to that premature architecture quite often. That's what YAGNI is there to advise against.
I don't think what Fowler says here is in favor of saddling the early versions of your system with abstractions before you actually seen its use in practice, and its needs over time as requirements and conditions change.
From this "Laziness drives us to make the system as simple as possible (but no simpler!) — to develop the powerful abstractions that then allow us to do much more, much more easily." it's clear that when he talks of abstractions he means of very basic, and as simple as possible, building blocks. Like having core, orthogonal, principles in the system.
Not the kind of piling of software and pattern design abstractions e.g. the Java land in the past used to build.
Hits the spot for me. I am always pushing back on AI to simplify and improve concision.
Wrong link. Technical, Cognitive and Intent Debt was discussed here: https://martinfowler.com/fragments/2026-04-02.html
Thanks! we updated the link.