alt Hacker News> What really matters is how well does the code performs 1 month after it goes live, 6 months, 5 years.
After 40 years in this industry—I started at 10 and hit 50 this year—I’ve developed a low tolerance for architectural decay.
Last night, I used Claude to spin up a website editor. My baseline for this project was a minimal JavaScript UI I’ve been running that clocks in at a lean 2.7KB (https://ponder.joeldare.com). It’s fast, it’s stable, and I understand every line. But for this session, I opted for Node and neglected to include my usual "zero-framework" constraint in the prompt.
The result is a functional, working piece of software that is also a total disaster. It’s a 48KB bundle with 5 direct dependencies—which exploded into 89 total dependencies. In a world where we prioritize "velocity" over maintenance, this is the status quo. For me, it’s unacceptable.
If a simple editor requires 89 third-party packages to exist, it won't survive the 5-year test. I'm going back to basics.
I'll try again but we NEED to expertly drive these tools, at least right now.
Replies
I don't understand. You specifically:
> neglected to include my usual "zero-framework" constraint in the prompt
And then your complaint is that it included a bunch of dependencies?
AI's do what you tell them. I don't understand how you conclude:
> If a simple editor requires 89 third-party packages to exist
It obviously doesn't. Why even bother complaining about an AI's default choices when it's so trivial to change them just by asking?
I always tell Claude, choose your own stack but no node_modules.
What's missing is another LLM dialog between you and Claude. One that figures out your priorities, your non-functional requirements, and instructs Claude appropriately.
We'll get there.