A sufficiently detailed spec is not code. It's documentation containing a wealth of information that the code cannot. Code describes how a product works, not wh

A sufficiently detailed spec is not code. It's documentation containing a wealth of information that the code cannot. Code describes how a product works, not what it is supposed to do. That is the job of the specification [1] [2]. Notably, the specification omits implementation details. That is the job of the code. Confusing the *how* and the *what* is very common when discussing specifications, in my experience. Programmers gravitate toward pseudocode when they have trouble articulating a functional requirement. > Specifications were never meant to be time-saving devices. Correct. Anyone selling specifications as a way to save time does not understand the purpose of a specification. Unfortunately, neither does the article's author. The article is based on a false premise. LLMs experience the same problems as humans when provided with underspecified requirements. That's a specification problem. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_requirements_specification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_requirements_specific... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_specification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_specification