Our compilers forced us to write clearly. Our coding agents won’t do that.
I was blessed with a terrific high school English teacher. Ms. Jewel was funny, kind, interesting, and tough on us. I can still spell “ecstasy” on the first try because of her. One of the more memorable lessons she taught was a “Hemingway and Fitzgerald” module.
I loved the short stories of both, but Hemingway’s work always stuck out for me. It’s cliché to say that Hemingway was terse, but we only say it because it is true. He could pack more into a page than most writers. He didn’t waste a syllable.
Software developers are soon going to have to take a lesson from Hemingway.
It’s not hard to be concise in code. You have to be, by design. The compiler won’t put up with any throat-clearing and jibber-jabber. You can’t meander. You have to use a very strict set of words and symbols, and you have to use them in a defined way.
Thanks to agentic development, we don’t write code anymore. But we are writing for the agents. A lot.
All about the spec
Let me explain. Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, and the rest all love to be “spoken” to in Markdown. We used to define our code with unit tests and specifications written for humans. Now, it’s all about the spec. And the spec needs to be both complete and concise.
It needs to be complete in the sense that if you leave something out or forget to define something, the agent will very likely fill in the gaps for you. Forget a feature or requirement, and the agent will go off confidently and almost certainly in the wrong direction.
At the same time, you need to be concise. Because if you are too effusive, you may give the agent ideas that you don’t want it to have. If you write like Fitzgerald — lush and expansive — the agent will be off and running in a direction you can’t be sure about.
Our compilers will stop cold if we aren’t precise and concise. Our agents? They will proceed with confidence, diligently producing a result that looks great but isn’t what we want.
So we need to learn to write like Hemingway and pack as much meaning into as few words as possible. Or, as Paul Graham said:
Foundry
Let’s be clear
For years, we’ve been writing semi-vague Jira tickets and expecting our fellow humans to fill in the gaps and “get the gist” of what we were trying to do. We don’t have that luxury anymore. Developers who aren’t able to move on from “Jira-speak” to “Agent-speak” are going to struggle. If we don’t follow Graham’s advice in writing those specs, who knows what we’ll get.
Maybe someday agents will know the ins and outs of our business well enough to “know what we mean,” but they can’t today. The time we used to spend coding now needs to be spent perfecting our new craft of writing precise specifications for our agents to execute.
Every listicle ever written on “How to be a Great Developer” says you need to be a great communicator — but that was communication with other humans.
Ms. Jewel always taught us that our writing is only as clear as our thinking. Our compilers forced us to write clearly. Our coding agents won’t do that. I’m sure there are many developers out there now who wish they had listened more closely to their high school English teacher.
