korrents
Thorsten Ball

Thorsten Ball

@thorsten-ball · 52 positions · 2 changes of mind · On ppll ↗

Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast. Wrote Writing an Interpreter in Go.

Thorsten Ball did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

The ideas Thorsten Ball's claims keep coming back to. The labels are ours; every quote is Thorsten Ball's own words.

Holds now (8)

How these views changed over time2015–2026
Sort
Show
2015 1 views
2016–18 1 quiet
2019 +1 new
2020 +2 new · 1 quiet
2021 2 quiet
2022 1 back
2023–25 1 quiet
2026 +4 new · 1 back

Each column is a stretch of time in which the same views came up; a new column starts when one appears or goes quiet. Quiet means nothing on it in our sources for that stretch, which is not the same as a change of mind; Dropped means they said they no longer hold it; tap the card for which claim and when. Revised means the view carries on but one of its claims was dropped. Each row is one view, in the same place all the way along. The number is how many claims in that stretch; we hold 3 in 2015, 0 in 2016, 1 in 2017, 0 in 2018, 3 in 2019, 9 in 2020, 0 in 2021, 4 in 2022, 0 in 2023, 0 in 2024, 1 in 2025, 35 in 2026.

Simple, minimal code beats clever code: every extra line, abstraction and dependency carries weight

Our label. 5 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

Simple, straightforward solutions can also be elegant, though not every elegant solution is straightforward.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Not every elegant solution is straightforward, but "stupid" ones are, per definition, and can also be elegant. Write Stupid Codethorstenball.com · 22 Oct 2015All korrents from this piece
    Not every elegant solution is straightforward, but "stupid" ones are, per definition, and can also be elegant.

Meta-programming is usually unnecessary complexity that obscures what code is meant to do.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast But there are a lot more cases in which meta-programming is unnecessary and additional baggage on top of the solution, which gets in the way of understanding what the code is supposed to do. Write Stupid Codethorstenball.com · 22 Oct 2015All korrents from this piece
    But there are a lot more cases in which meta-programming is unnecessary and additional baggage on top of the solution, which gets in the way of understanding what the code is supposed to do.

Code that is complex or clever can pass its tests while still being bad code.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast A lot of complex, "look at this clever trick", overly-abstracted, unreadable code works and makes the tests pass. Write Stupid Codethorstenball.com · 22 Oct 2015All korrents from this piece
    A lot of complex, "look at this clever trick", overly-abstracted, unreadable code works and makes the tests pass.

Unnecessary code is a burden that makes a codebase harder to change

Less, but better

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Code has mass. Every additional line of code you don't need is ballast. It weighs your codebase down, making it harder to steer and change direction if you need to. Professional Programming: The First 10 Yearsthorstenball.com · 17 May 2022All korrents from this piece
    Code has mass. Every additional line of code you don't need is ballast. It weighs your codebase down, making it harder to steer and change direction if you need to.

Using a dependency carries ongoing maintenance costs, not just upfront convenience

Second-order thinking, Everything decays without maintenance

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Dependencies aren't free. You have to keep them up to date. They increase your compile or loading times. Professional Programming: The First 10 Yearsthorstenball.com · 17 May 2022All korrents from this piece
    Dependencies aren't free. You have to keep them up to date. They increase your compile or loading times.

Each programming language is a lens that shapes how a programmer thinks about a problem

Our label. 3 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

A programming language functions as a lens that shapes how a problem is perceived when solving it.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Every programming language is a lens through which we can look at the problem we're trying to solve. Learn more programming languages, even if you won't use themthorstenball.com · 9 Apr 2019All korrents from this piece
    Every programming language is a lens through which we can look at the problem we're trying to solve.

Each programming language embodies a distinct mental model for thinking about computation and writing programs.

Many models, not one

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Each language contains a different mental model, a different perspective for thinking about computation and how to write programs. Learn more programming languages, even if you won't use themthorstenball.com · 9 Apr 2019All korrents from this piece
    Each language contains a different mental model, a different perspective for thinking about computation and how to write programs.

Programming languages shape how programmers think, similar to how spoken languages shape thought.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Languages shape the way we think*, each in their own peculiar way. That's true for programming languages as well. Learn more programming languages, even if you won't use themthorstenball.com · 9 Apr 2019All korrents from this piece
    Languages shape the way we think*, each in their own peculiar way. That's true for programming languages as well.

Fix the real bottleneck; tooling and automation that miss it add noise and upkeep

Our label. 4 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

Building automation that doesn't address the actual bottleneck to shipping adds noise rather than helping ship.

Bottlenecks

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast If what's holding you back from shipping is, say, getting more customer input, or a brittle release process, or flaky monitoring, or missing tests, then all the bot does is to add noise. It doesn't help you ship. But does it help you ship?thorstenball.com · 25 Aug 2020All korrents from this piece
    If what's holding you back from shipping is, say, getting more customer input, or a brittle release process, or flaky monitoring, or missing tests, then all the bot does is to add noise. It doesn't help you ship.

Automated tooling that works nearly all the time still imposes an ongoing maintenance cost, because it breaks unpredictably at the edges.

Everything decays without maintenance, Leaky abstractions

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Another thing that needs to be fixed when it ultimately breaks down, another bit of automation that works 99% of the time, but starts making funny noises when you slip into the 1% But does it help you ship?thorstenball.com · 25 Aug 2020All korrents from this piece
    Another thing that needs to be fixed when it ultimately breaks down, another bit of automation that works 99% of the time, but starts making funny noises when you slip into the 1%

Discomfort or effort in typing that makes someone avoid writing things down is a genuine bottleneck that should be fixed, not dismissed.

Bottlenecks

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast If you're not comfortable typing a lot and you'd rather not write something down then typing is the bottleneck and you need to fix it. Typing is not something you should need to think about. No, typing can be the bottleneckthorstenball.com · 1 Sept 2020All korrents from this piece
    If you're not comfortable typing a lot and you'd rather not write something down then typing is the bottleneck and you need to fix it. Typing is not something you should need to think about.

Fiddling with worktrees, custom tab management, notification systems, and agent spawn wrappers is as productive as changing colorschemes in Vim eighteen times per day.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast all the fiddling with worktrees, with custom tab management, and notifications systems, and agent spawn wrappers is as productive as someone changing colorschemes in Vim eighteen times per day. @thorstenball on Xx.com · 8 Oct 2026
    all the fiddling with worktrees, with custom tab management, and notifications systems, and agent spawn wrappers is as productive as someone changing colorschemes in Vim eighteen times per day.

Written, asynchronous communication works; needing everyone in one room is a warning sign

Our label. 3 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

Needing to gather everyone in the same room to make a decision indicates that too many people are involved in that decision.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast if you often need to get everyone in the same room to discuss and decide on something, you probably have too many people discussing and deciding things. What you think is bad about remote work, can, well, actually be good.thorstenball.com · 22 May 2020All korrents from this piece
    if you often need to get everyone in the same room to discuss and decide on something, you probably have too many people discussing and deciding things.

Face-to-face meetings are not inherently better than other forms of communication and can waste time just like anything else.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast face-to-face meetings are not inherently better. They can be time wasters just like anything else. What you think is bad about remote work, can, well, actually be good.thorstenball.com · 22 May 2020All korrents from this piece
    face-to-face meetings are not inherently better. They can be time wasters just like anything else.

In asynchronous, text-based communication, the loudest person in the room loses influence and it shifts to the best communicators.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast when the main communication channels are asynchronous text and video calls (as would be the case in a remote work setup) the influence of the loudest person in the room wanes. It's transferred to the best communicators. What you think is bad about remote work, can, well, actually be good.thorstenball.com · 22 May 2020All korrents from this piece
    when the main communication channels are asynchronous text and video calls (as would be the case in a remote work setup) the influence of the loudest person in the room wanes. It's transferred to the best communicators.

Hand-written code stops mattering; what counts is building the right software and how it behaves

Our label. 6 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

The craft of writing code will disappear, while the craft of building software becomes more important than ever.

Value moves to what stays scarce

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast The craft of writing code will disappear. Yes, there are still Italian shoe makers around. But look at your feet. The craft of building software will be more important than ever. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    The craft of writing code will disappear. Yes, there are still Italian shoe makers around. But look at your feet. The craft of building software will be more important than ever.

There is no proof good code will matter in the future, since the notion is based on human ease of use and humans will not modify most code.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast There’s no proof that “good code” will matter in the future. The notion of “good code” itself is mostly based on the idea that it’s easy/cheap/efficient for humans to work with. But humans won’t modify the majority of code. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    There’s no proof that “good code” will matter in the future. The notion of “good code” itself is mostly based on the idea that it’s easy/cheap/efficient for humans to work with. But humans won’t modify the majority of code.

Most software bugs will not be coding bugs but bugs from asking for the wrong thing.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Most bugs won’t be “coding” bugs. They’ll be “you asked for the wrong thing” bugs. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    Most bugs won’t be “coding” bugs. They’ll be “you asked for the wrong thing” bugs.

Future importance will lie in runtime behavior and its legibility to agents.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast What will matter in future is runtime behavior: Performance characteristics, resource usage, failure modes, observability, debuggability, deployments, rollbacks. And legibility of all that to agents. @thorstenball on Xx.com · 25 Sept 2026
    What will matter in future is runtime behavior: Performance characteristics, resource usage, failure modes, observability, debuggability, deployments, rollbacks. And legibility of all that to agents.

Questions whether software that works, performs well, has no bugs, is understood, and can later be modified by an agent should be called slop.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast If it works, if it's performant, if it has no bugs, if you understand how it works, if the agent can modify it a month from now, to your liking, is it slop? @thorstenball on Xx.com · 2 Oct 2026
    If it works, if it's performant, if it has no bugs, if you understand how it works, if the agent can modify it a month from now, to your liking, is it slop?

In the future, humans will not find bugs in model-produced code in reasonable time and will only review system composition, not via PRs or line-by-line review.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast in the future, humans won’t find a bug or an issue with the code produced by a model, at least not in a reasonable time. Humans will only review the system and its composition, but it won’t be in PRs and it won’t be by looking through every line of the code. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    in the future, humans won’t find a bug or an issue with the code produced by a model, at least not in a reasonable time. Humans will only review the system and its composition, but it won’t be in PRs and it won’t be by looking through every line of the code.

Tokens remake computing: terminals, much UI, team rituals and open source as we know it fall away

Our label. 6 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

Tokens are the new computing paradigm on which everything will be remade as computing enters a post-binary era.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Tokens are the new computing paradigm. Everything will be re-made on top of it. We’ve had deterministic computers for 80 years, so we confuse “how computers have worked” with “how computers must work.” We’re entering the post-binary era. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    Tokens are the new computing paradigm. Everything will be re-made on top of it. We’ve had deterministic computers for 80 years, so we confuse “how computers have worked” with “how computers must work.” We’re entering the post-binary era.

The terminal is dead; most developer tooling including shells, text editors and CLIs will be washed away by tokens and no longer used by humans.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast The terminal is dead. Most developer tooling will be washed away by tokens. Shells, text editors, CLI tools won’t be used by humans anymore. There’s no need to know command line flags and jq invocations anymore. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    The terminal is dead. Most developer tooling will be washed away by tokens. Shells, text editors, CLI tools won’t be used by humans anymore. There’s no need to know command line flags and jq invocations anymore.

Much UI exists because software cannot understand user intent and serves as a human API to dumb machines, so smarter machines need far less UI.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast A lot of UI exists because software can’t understand what you want. Menus, settings screens, dashboards, filters: much of it is a human-accessible API to a dumb machine. Smart machines need much less UI. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    A lot of UI exists because software can’t understand what you want. Menus, settings screens, dashboards, filters: much of it is a human-accessible API to a dumb machine. Smart machines need much less UI.

The PM/Design/Eng triad will disappear as senseless, and Agile and SCRUM are dead.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast The triad of PM/Design/Eng will disappear. It does not make any bit of sense anymore. Agile, SCRUM, whatever – dead What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    The triad of PM/Design/Eng will disappear. It does not make any bit of sense anymore. Agile, SCRUM, whatever – dead

Open source in its current form no longer makes sense because artificial eyeballs now fulfill the "enough eyeballs" principle for finding bugs.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Open source in its current form doesn’t make sense anymore. “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” is still true but now we have artificial eyeballs What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    Open source in its current form doesn’t make sense anymore. “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” is still true but now we have artificial eyeballs

Engineers who act as meat proxies shoving tickets into agents and reporting back to humans will no longer be valuable.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast “Engineers” who act as “meat proxies” and shove tickets into agents and report back to humans will no longer be valuable. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    “Engineers” who act as “meat proxies” and shove tickets into agents and report back to humans will no longer be valuable.

With agents, changing code is cheap, so teams can ship faster in small steps with fewer rituals

Our label. 5 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

With agents, it is possible to move 10x faster.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast With agents you can now move 10x faster, you can finally do real continuous integration, and get more confidence in the changes the agent made. @thorstenball on Xx.com · 16 Oct 2026
    With agents you can now move 10x faster, you can finally do real continuous integration, and get more confidence in the changes the agent made.

It is now much faster and easier to change code than it was years ago.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast it's now much faster and easier to change code. Years ago a wrong decision could cause days and weeks of refactoring. Now? Probably less. @thorstenball on Xx.com · 17 Oct 2026
    it's now much faster and easier to change code. Years ago a wrong decision could cause days and weeks of refactoring. Now? Probably less.

It is possible to have a team that ships fast and builds a great product without code reviews or PRs.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast You can now have a team that ships fast, ships a lot, makes a ton of money, delights customers, builds a great product that's beloved AND no code reviews, no PRs, without yoloing to main. @thorstenball on Xx.com · 17 Oct 2026
    You can now have a team that ships fast, ships a lot, makes a ton of money, delights customers, builds a great product that's beloved AND no code reviews, no PRs, without yoloing to main.

Growing conviction that people who do best with AI agents are those good at shipping things in small pieces.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Increasingly convinced: people who do best with agents are those that are good at shipping things in small pieces @thorstenball on Xx.com · 24 Sept 2026
    Increasingly convinced: people who do best with agents are those that are good at shipping things in small pieces

Models change so fast that views formed months ago need rethinking

Our label. 4 claims in Thorsten Ball's own words.

AI models considered smart today will be considered very dumb in the future, and smarter models make fewer mistakes and need fewer turns.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast And what we consider a smart model today will be considered very dumb in the future. But a smarter model makes less mistakes, needs fewer turns. What I believe about the future of software developmentthorstenball.com · 19 Sept 2026All korrents from this piece
    And what we consider a smart model today will be considered very dumb in the future. But a smarter model makes less mistakes, needs fewer turns.

The biggest source of confusion about whether AI models are good or bad is that people judge them from wildly different codebases, languages, teams, and usage levels.

  1. Thorsten Ball Co-founder of Amp and co-host of the Raising an Agent podcast Biggest source of confusion is that everyone - spent wildly different # of tokens in last 2 years - works in diff codebases - with diff languages - and diff requirements - in diff teams - with diff processes - in diff companies and then says "models are [good|bad]" @thorstenball on Xx.com · 1 Oct 2026
    Biggest source of confusion is that everyone - spent wildly different # of tokens in last 2 years - works in diff codebases - with diff languages - and diff requirements - in diff teams - with diff processes - in diff companies and then says "models are [good|bad]"