Some of us do! That's called Gherkin.
replyAmbiguity is the grease that keeps everything turning.
replySo basically tests?
replyYes, except a test can be turing complete - i.e. code.
replyAn executable spec like gherkin or hitchstory is config - it has no loops or conditionals. There are a number of rarely recognized benefits to this.
Could you expand on this?
replycode
replyLiterate programming would provide specs and code instead of working backwards from hard coded functions to figure out specs.
reply> working backwards from hard coded functions to figure out specs.
replyPeople do that? Actual professionals?
If you're confused, and have tried Opus for coding, I'm keen to hear what problems or workflows it's not good at.
replyIf you're genuinely confused, and haven't tried Opus for coding, then it's not surprising you're confused!
It is also okay for you to just not like the idea of LLMs for coding (but say that!).
I’m using Opus 4.6 and I’m so confused! Maybe I should try Opus 4.7, which is almost twice as expensive to get some clarity (but not too much, I need to save money for Opus 4.8)?
replyThat's what the article is about - overcoming problems with AI cooding tools using specs in Yaml. If we've got that far, it might be better to write specs in a proper programming language instead and skip the AI layer altogether
replyThink the idea is to still get monumental acceleration between fancy YAML specs (bullet points with some indentation that an intelligent technical manager could write) and production ready code.
reply