"Software Fundamentals Matter More Than Ever" — Matt Pocock

Hello everyone. Having a good conference so far?

Are you having a good conference so far?

Good. Wonderful.

I have a message for you that I hope will be um a comforting message for folks who believe that uh their skill set is no longer worth anything in this

new age, which is I believe that software fundamentals matter now more than they actually ever have.

And I'm a teacher and I've been recently teaching a course called Claude Code for real engineers. Nice and provocative.

real engineers. Nice and provocative.

And in the process of kind of working on this course, I had to come up with a curriculum about AI coding, which is a bit of a nightmare because things are

changing all the time, right? AI is a whole new paradigm. We need to chuck out all of the old rules surely so that we can bring in the new stuff.

And there's a kind of movement that has come up around this, which is the specs to code movement. And the specs to code movement says that okay you can write a specification about how an application

is supposed to work then you can use AI to turn it into code. If there's a problem with the application you then go back to the spec. You don't really look at the code. You just change the spec.

You run the compiler again and you end up with more code. Raise your hand if you've heard of that. Keep your hand raised if you've tried it. Okay. I've

tried it too. You can put your hands down.

And what I noticed was I would run it and I would try not to look at the code but I would look at the code and I realized I would get code out first of all and then I would run it I would get

worse code and then I did it again I got even worse code and I got it again I kept running the compiler kept running the compiler and I would just end up with garbage.

You know raise your hand if that's happened to you. Yes. I don't think this works. the idea that we can just ignore

works. the idea that we can just ignore the code and just have the code let it manage itself is just sort of v coding by another name and I didn't believe that back then I

thought okay how do I fix the compiler how do I make it so that it doesn't produce bad code each time or worse code and so I thought okay I need to explain to the LLM in English what a good

codebase looks like let me dig out one of my old favorite books which is a philosophy of software design by John ouster go on Amazon get it. Um, and he

has a definition for what bad code looks like. He calls it complex code.

like. He calls it complex code.

Complexity is anything related to the structure of a software system that makes it hard to understand and modify the system. Right? So, a a bad codebase

the system. Right? So, a a bad codebase is a codebase that's hard to change. If

you can't change a codebase without causing bugs, then it's a bad codebase.

Good code bases are easy to change. So,

I thought, oh, that was good. Let's try

another book. Let's try the paragmatic programmer. Go on Amazon, get it. They

programmer. Go on Amazon, get it. They

have a whole chapter on something called software entropy. And this is exactly

software entropy. And this is exactly what I was seeing. Entropy is the idea that things tend towards um disaster and uh floating away from each other and collapse. And this is exactly how most

collapse. And this is exactly how most software systems behave too is that every time you make a change to a codebase, if you're only thinking about that change, not thinking about the design of the whole system, your

codebase is going to get worse and worse and worse. And that's what I was seeing.

and worse. And that's what I was seeing.

Everything inside the specs to code idea that you just run the compiler again and again was making worse code. Now there's

an idea that sort of drives the specs to code movement which is that code is cheap. Raise your hand if you've heard

cheap. Raise your hand if you've heard that phrase before that code is cheap.

Yeah.

Well, I don't think this is right. I

think code is not cheap. In fact, bad code is the most expensive it's ever been. Because if you have a codebase

been. Because if you have a codebase that's hard to change, you're not able to take all of the bounty that AI can offer because AI in a good codebase

actually does really, really well.

And this means good code bases matter more than ever, which means software fundamentals matter more than ever.

That's the thesis of this talk. So,

let's actually get into practical stuff.

I'm going to talk about different failure modes that you may have experienced or you may not have experienced yet with AI and how you can avoid them by just going back to old books and looking at good software

practices. Sound good? So, the first one

practices. Sound good? So, the first one is that the AI didn't do what I wanted.

You know, I I thought I had a good idea in my head and the AI just did something totally different or it did some uh like specs that I you know, it just made something I didn't want. Raise your hand if you've hit this mode.

Cool. Okay. Well, this is what they say in the pragmatic programmer is that no one knows exactly what they want. Is

that you and the AI, there is a communication barrier there, right? And

so when you're talking to the AI, that's kind of like the AI doing its requirements gathering. It's basically

requirements gathering. It's basically working out from you what it is that you need. And I realized that there was

need. And I realized that there was another book, Frederick P. Brooks, the

design of design, and it talks about this idea called the design concept. is

that when you have more than one person designing something together, you have this idea sort of floating between you, this ephemeral idea of the thing that you're building. And that thing that

you're building. And that thing that you're building or the idea of it is called the design concept. It's not an asset. It's not something you can put in

asset. It's not something you can put in a markdown file. It is the invisible sort of theory of what you're building.

And so I thought, okay, that's what's going on. Me and the AI don't share a

going on. Me and the AI don't share a design concept. So I came up with a

design concept. So I came up with a skill. The skill is very very simple.

skill. The skill is very very simple.

It's called grill me and it looks like this. Interview me relentlessly about

this. Interview me relentlessly about every aspect of this plan until we reach a shared understanding. Walk down each branch of the design tree which is another thing from Frederick P. Brooks

resolving dependencies between decisions one by one. This skill is like uh the repo containing this skill has like 13,000 stars or something like it just went nuts. Went viral. People love this

went nuts. Went viral. People love this thing. it. These couple of lines means

thing. it. These couple of lines means the AI asks you like 40 questions, 60 questions. I've had it ask uh people a

questions. I've had it ask uh people a hundred questions before it's satisfied they've reached a shared understanding.

And it means it turns the AI into a kind of adversary where it's just continually pinging you ideas and trying to reach a shared understanding. And that means

shared understanding. And that means that the conversation that you then generate, you can take that and turn it into a product requirements document or something. or if it's a small change,

something. or if it's a small change, you can just uh do turn it directly into issues and then your AFK agent will then pick it up. And don't at me on this, but

I personally believe this is better than the default plan mode in the tool that I use, which is claw code. Plan mode is extremely eager to create an asset. It

really wants to uh just create a plan and start working. whereas I think it's a lot nicer to reach a shared design

concept first. So that's tip number one.

concept first. So that's tip number one.

Now failure mode number two is that the AI is just way too verbose.

It's like you're almost talking across purposes with the AI. Raise your hand if you uh feel this. If you ever experience that failure mode. Yeah. It's kind of like the AI is like talking just using too many words to try to communicate

what it's doing. It's not like you're talking uh using the same language. And

this to me felt very very familiar.

Right? If you've ever been a developer for a long time and you've worked with let's say domain experts, someone building an application um let's say the domain expert wants you to build something on uh I don't know microchips.

You have no idea what microchips are.

You need to establish some kind of shared language, right? Because

otherwise they're going to be using terms you don't understand. You're going

to be translating that into code that maybe you don't even understand and certainly the domain expert won't. And

so there's this kind of language gap between you and the domain expert. And

so I went back to domain driven design.

DDD, this is something I'm still kind of on the edge of exploring, but everything I'm reading about DDD is just music to my ears. I freaking love it. And DDD has

my ears. I freaking love it. And DDD has a concept of a ubiquitous language.

With ubiquitous language, conversations among developers and expressions of the code and conversations with domain experts are all derived from the same domain model. It's essentially a

domain model. It's essentially a markdown file full of a list of terms that you and the AI have in common. And

you really focus on those terms and you really make sure that they're aligned with what it actually means and you use them all the time in the code when you're talking about the code when you're talking to domain experts or in

our case when you're talking with AI. So

I made a skill. This skill is the ubiquitous language skill. Basically

just scans your codebase, looks for terminology, and then um creates a markdown file. Creates the ubiquitous

markdown file. Creates the ubiquitous language markdown file. A bunch of markdown tables with all of the terminology. And this then I pass it to

terminology. And this then I pass it to the AI and I'm able to read it to and I actually have it open all the time when I'm grilling with the AI and planning and that. And what I noticed by reading

and that. And what I noticed by reading the thinking traces of the AI, it not only improves the planning, but it allows the AI to think in a less verbose way and actually means that the

implementation is more aligned with what you actually planned. So this has absolutely been a powerhouse. It's been

unbelievably good. So that's tip number two. Create a shared language with the

two. Create a shared language with the AI. So okay, let's imagine that you've

AI. So okay, let's imagine that you've aligned with the AI. You know what it is you're supposed to be building. the AI

has built the right thing, but it doesn't work. Raise your hands if that's

doesn't work. Raise your hands if that's happened to you. Yeah, just doesn't work. Well, there's an obvious thing

work. Well, there's an obvious thing that we can do to make that better, which is we can use feedback loops. We

can use um static types. You know, if you're not using TypeScript, u that's crazy. Uh if you're not using uh if

crazy. Uh if you're not using uh if you're building a front-end app and you're not giving it the LM access to the browser so it can look around, absolutely needs that. And you obviously

also need automated tests.

And one sort of thing I notice here is that even with these feedback loops, the LLM doesn't use them very well. It

doesn't kind of like get the most out of its feedback loops in the way that a veteran developer would. And so it does what it tends to do is just does way too much at once. it will produce like huge

amounts of code and then think, "Oh, I should probably type check that actually or I should uh yeah, maybe check a test on that or maybe do something like that." And this in the pragmatic

that." And this in the pragmatic programmer they describe as outrunning your headlights as essentially driving too fast because the rate of feedback is

your speed limit. The rate of feedback is your speed limit, which means that you should be testing as you go, taking small deliberate steps. And the AI by default is really not very good at that.

And so skill number three is TDD. You

should be using testdriven development because TDD forces the LLM to really take small steps. You create a test first. You make that test pass and then

first. You make that test pass and then you refactor the code to make it nicer and consider the design.

The issue here is that testing is really hard. Testing has always been hard.

hard. Testing has always been hard.

And the reason for that is there are a ton of different decisions you need to make when you write a test. You need to figure out how big a unit do you want to test. You need

to figure out what to mock. You need to figure out what behaviors do you even want to test in the first place. And all

of these decisions are dependent. So if

you are testing a really big unit like an entire massive application, then it might be quite flaky. You might not want to test that many behaviors. you know,

if you only test this unit, you need to mock this unit. You know, it's all interlin. And I've been thinking about

interlin. And I've been thinking about this for years for my entire development career.

And what we notice is that good code bases are easy code bases to test, right? So, here we're starting to get

right? So, here we're starting to get back to the idea of code being important is that the better your codebase is, the better your feedback loops are. Because

you're able to um give better feedback to the LM, it produces better code.

And so I thought what does a good codebase what does a testable codebase look like? Again we go to John erhout.

look like? Again we go to John erhout.

He talks about having deep modules in your codebase. Not shallow modules not

your codebase. Not shallow modules not lots of modules that expose like kind of um lots of functions. They should be relatively few large deep modules with

simple interfaces. Let's compare them

simple interfaces. Let's compare them quickly.

Deep modules, lots of functionality hidden behind a simple interface, hiding the complexity. You can look inside the

the complexity. You can look inside the deep module if you want to, but you don't need to. You can just use the interface. Shallow modules, not much

interface. Shallow modules, not much functionality, complex interface.

And I'll just wait for you to take the photos.

Shallow modules in a codebase kind of look like this, where you have a ton of different tiny little blobs that the AI has to walk through and navigate. And

this is really hard for the AI to explore actually. And so often what

explore actually. And so often what you'll see is if you have a codebase like this, which AI is really good at creating code bases like this is that you'll have a situation where AI doesn't understand what your code is doing. It

will attempt to explore the code, but because it's poorly laid out, filled with shallow modules, it doesn't maybe get to the right module in time or doesn't understand all the dependencies, all that stuff. It doesn't understand

your code. And so what does a codebase

your code. And so what does a codebase full of deep modules look like? Well, it

looks like this where it's the same code, but it's just structured inside boundaries where you have these interfaces on the top.

And these interfaces, you should probably have a lot of control over them and design them really well. Otherwise,

you know, AI might mess up the design.

But the implementation, you can kind of leave that to the AI a bit.

So, how do you turn a codebase that looks like this into a codebase that looks like that? Well, I've got a skill for that. Improve codebase architecture.

for that. Improve codebase architecture.

Turns out this is not it's quite complicated to do this, but it's a like a set of steps that you can reusably do again and again. You just sort of explore the codebase, look for

opportunities where there's code that's kind of um related, and wrap all of that in a deep module.

And this is a testable codebase because the boundaries around this code are so so simple. You test at the interface,

so simple. You test at the interface, you verify using that interface and you're good to go. And so this is a codebase that rewards TDD.

But how about failure bone number six, which is your okay, let's say your feedback loops are working. Let's say

that things are kicking into gear.

You're able to ship more code than you ever have before, but your brain can't keep up, right? Uh, raise your hand if you felt more tired than you have ever

before in your development career. Yeah,

me too. It's knackering. And I think that this is a codebase that actually makes it harder for your brain because you as well as the AI need to keep all

of that information in your head.

Whereas this, not only is it simpler for you to read and understand, it also means you can kind of treat these modules or these deep modules as gray

boxes.

you can kind of say okay I'm going to just design the interface but I'm not going to worry too much or not review the implementation too much you can do this obviously with uh things that are

less critical in your application can't do this with uh you know various things like finance or whatever but in many many modules in your app you don't need to think about the implementation too much as long as you have a testable

boundary outside the module and as long as you understand its purpose and can design it from the outside I have found this has really saved my brain because I can just go okay the AI I'll let you

handle what's inside the big blob I'm just going to test from the outside and verify it so that's tip number five design the interface delegate the implementation

but this means that whenever we're touching the code whenever we're planning stuff we need to think about and be aware of the modules in our application we need to know that map really well it needs to be part of our

ubiquitous language we need to build into our planning skills as well. So my

writer PRD inside the PRD I'm specific about the module changes and the interfaces inside those modules how they're being modified. I'm thinking

about them all the time. And this comes from Kent Beck. Invest in the design of the system every day. And this is the core of it right because specs the code

we are not investing in the design of the system we are divesting from it.

We're getting rid of that. Whereas this

I think is absolutely key.

And so code is not cheap. That's the

message I want you to take away. Code is

important.

And if we think about AI as a really great on the ground programmer, a kind of tactical programmer, a sergeant on the ground making the code changes, you

need someone above that. You need

someone thinking on the strategic level and that's you. And that requires software fundamental skills that we've been using for 20 years for longer.

Now, if you are interested in any of the skills I put up here, it's in the GitHub repo, Mac PCO skills. And if you're interested in the training that I do or uh any free stuff, I'm on YouTube, I'm

on Twitter, but I'm also at aihero.dev where I have a newsletter that you can check out. Thank you so much. I hope

check out. Thank you so much. I hope

that this gives you confidence in this new AI age that you can actually make a good impact. Thank you.

good impact. Thank you.