New blog post: "A sufficiently detailed spec is code"
I wrote this because I was tired of people claiming that the future of agentic coding is thoughtful specification work. As I show in the post, the reality devolves into slop pseudocode
haskellforall.com/2026/03/a-su...
Specifications do not address the limitations of agentic coding
Continuing my vibecoding experiment, this time with Claude Code.
It can spin up whole new features with ease, but it'll repeatedly fail to render a pointer cursor on a button.
The key is giving it tasks that it can write tests for. You wouldn't however expect to need to test cursor states...
Also, every single publication talking about Playlist Playground failing to observe it’s currently US-only.
Same here. Quad9/UK if it helps.
iOS 26.4’s Apple Music changes amount to it largely ignoring light/dark theming, so probably don’t open Favourite Songs after dark. 😬
Today's reminder that LLMs can't reason:
> You have five active Thread Border Routers across two ecosystems (Apple + Google + Aqara).
It does the same with React when usually that’s the wrong approach. It’s trained on everything which in aggregate isn’t very good code regardless of stack.
I mean it’s taken a dozen reprompts to mostly fix the cursor issue in SwiftUI, and it’d be challenging to test for.
Let’s not pretend like conflict markers aren’t frequently incomprehensible.
I’d tend to agree, though I fear the gap is where testing and arbitrary choice can make that looser specification technically functional.
It’ll be slow and unpleasant and inaccessible but it’ll potentially work and be far cheaper to produce, which our economic model will incentivise.
