The diff was 847 lines. Green additions everywhere, a few red deletions, and what looked like a complete rewrite of our user authentication system. I'd spent three weeks crafting what I considered a masterpiece of modern software engineering—elegant abstractions, design patterns applied with surgical precision, and enough architectural sophistication to make any computer science textbook proud.
I hit "Create Pull Request" with the confidence of someone who'd just solved authentication forever.
Daisy's review came back two hours later. Not the line-by-line nitpicks I expected, but a single comment that made my stomach drop:
"I can't figure out what this code is trying to do."
Daisy wasn't a junior developer. She'd been writing production systems for eight years, had architected half our current infrastructure, and could debug distributed systems failures in her sleep. If she couldn't understand my code, the problem wasn't her comprehension.
The problem was my communication.
The Syntax Obsession
Looking back, I can see exactly where I went wrong. I'd fallen into the trap that captures most developers early in their careers—I was writing code to impress the compiler, not to communicate with humans.
Every method was a showcase of language features I'd recently learned. I used advanced generics where simple types would have worked. I implemented the Strategy pattern for a problem that had exactly one strategy. I created abstractions that were "flexible for future requirements" that existed only in my imagination.
The authentication flow that should have been readable as a straightforward sequence—validate credentials, check permissions, generate tokens—had become an archaeological dig through layers of indirection. Each abstraction was technically correct, but collectively they obscured the actual business logic under a mountain of architectural ceremony.
I was optimizing for the wrong audience. Code is written once and read hundreds of times. I'd optimized for the one time I wrote it and ignored the hundreds of times someone would need to understand it.
Daisy's comment wasn't criticism of my technical skills. It was feedback on my communication skills. The code worked perfectly, but it failed at its primary job: making the system's behavior clear to the next person who needed to work with it.
The Clarity Revelation
The conversation that followed changed my entire approach to software development. Daisy didn't rewrite my code or demand specific changes. Instead, she asked questions:
"What problem were you trying to solve here?"
"Why did you choose this abstraction over a simpler approach?"
"If someone joined our team tomorrow, how long would it take them to understand this flow?"
I found myself struggling to answer. Not because the questions were difficult, but because I'd never asked them myself. I'd been so focused on demonstrating technical sophistication that I'd lost sight of the actual purpose: building systems that other people could understand, maintain, and extend.
The rewrite took me four days. Same functionality, one-third the code, zero design patterns. The authentication flow read like a straightforward narrative: receive request, validate user, check permissions, generate response. Each step was explicit, each decision was documented, each edge case was handled obviously.
The new version was boring. It was also brilliant.
When I submitted the revised pull request, Daisy's approval came within an hour. But more importantly, when we onboarded a new developer three months later, they understood the authentication system in a single afternoon. When a security audit required changes to our token generation, the modifications were straightforward. When a bug appeared in production six months later, the debugging process took minutes instead of hours.
The boring code turned out to be the most sophisticated solution—sophisticated in its simplicity, not its complexity.
The Collaboration Shift
That pull request taught me something fundamental about software development that no computer science course had mentioned: code is a collaborative medium. You're not just instructing a computer what to do—you're communicating with future developers about why you did it.
This realization changed everything about how I approached development. Before writing any code, I started asking different questions:
Instead of "How can I showcase my technical skills?" I asked "How can I make this as clear as possible to someone reading it for the first time?"
Instead of "What's the most elegant solution?" I asked "What's the most obvious solution?"
Instead of "How can I make this flexible for every possible future requirement?" I asked "What does this actually need to do today, and how can I make that crystal clear?"
The shift from syntax obsession to clarity obsession transformed not just my code, but my entire development process. I began writing more comments—not explaining what the code did (that should be obvious from reading it), but why certain decisions were made. I started choosing variable names that explained their purpose rather than showcasing my vocabulary. I began structuring functions around human understanding rather than algorithmic efficiency.
Most importantly, I stopped viewing code review as a test of my technical knowledge and started seeing it as a collaboration tool. Each review became an opportunity to ensure that my code communicated its intent clearly to other team members.
The AI-Assisted Workflow
Modern AI tools have amplified this clarity-focused approach in ways I couldn't have imagined. But here's what most developers get wrong: they use AI to generate more sophisticated code, when they should be using it to generate clearer code.
When I'm working on complex business logic now, I'll use Claude not to write the implementation, but to help me articulate what the implementation should accomplish. I'll describe the problem in plain English and ask the AI to identify edge cases I might have missed, suggest simpler approaches I haven't considered, or point out where my explanations become unclear.
The Code Explainer has become invaluable for the reverse process—testing whether my code communicates its intent clearly. If I can't explain to an AI what my code does and why in simple terms, it's a signal that the code itself might be unnecessarily complex.
When I'm stuck between multiple implementation approaches, I'll use GPT-4 to walk through the tradeoffs. Not to make the decision for me, but to help me think through the implications systematically. The act of articulating different options to an AI forces me to be more explicit about my reasoning—the same way explaining code to a colleague reveals gaps in your thinking.
The goal isn't to have AI write better code. The goal is to use AI to think more clearly about the code you write.
The Compound Effect
The habits I developed after that humbling pull request have compounded over the years. Clear code leads to fewer bugs, which means less time debugging. Obvious solutions are easier to modify when requirements change, which means faster feature development. Well-documented decisions reduce the need for archaeological expeditions through git history, which means smoother maintenance cycles.
But the most significant impact has been on collaboration. When your code communicates clearly, code reviews become conversations about business logic rather than detective work to understand implementation details. When your solutions are obvious, team members can contribute to them more easily. When your technical decisions are well-documented, knowledge transfer becomes natural rather than painful.
The developers who advance fastest in their careers aren't the ones who can implement the most complex algorithms or who know the most esoteric language features. They're the ones whose code is easiest to work with—to read, to modify, to extend, and to debug.
Technical sophistication without communication clarity is just expensive complexity.
The Practice That Matters
The next time you're about to submit a pull request, try this exercise: read through your code as if you're a developer who just joined your team. What questions would they have? What context are you assuming they possess? What decisions seem obvious to you but might be puzzling to them?
Better yet, use Crompt AI to simulate that fresh perspective. Describe your code to an AI as if it were a new team member, and pay attention to where your explanations become convoluted or where you find yourself using jargon without definition.
The goal isn't to write code that any beginner can understand—that's a different kind of complexity trap. The goal is to write code that clearly communicates its purpose to someone with appropriate technical background but no context about your specific implementation choices.
Every line of code is a line of communication. Make sure you're saying what you think you're saying.
The most sophisticated code I write today looks embarrassingly simple. It solves complex problems with obvious solutions, handles edge cases explicitly, and explains its reasoning through structure rather than comments. It's boring to write and satisfying to maintain.
That pull request taught me that software engineering isn't about proving how clever you are—it's about solving problems so clearly that complexity becomes unnecessary.
The code that changes the world is the code that others can understand well enough to change.
Ready to write code that communicates as clearly as it computes? You should check out Crompt AI free—where clarity and collaboration meet cutting-edge development.
-Leena:)
Top comments (0)