DEV Community

~K'
~K'

Posted on

Ambiguity Scales Worse Than Verbosity

When designing small scripts or short-lived software, implicit behavior often feels productive.

The language guesses your intent.
Defaults kick in.
Short syntax saves keystrokes.

Everything looks fine.
Until the system grows.


The illusion of productivity

Implicit behavior is often sold as convenience.
And in small contexts, it is.

But convenience scales poorly.

As systems grow, implicit behavior becomes:

silent assumptions

hidden contracts

multiple interpretations of the same construct

At that point, what once felt productive starts turning into:

bugs that are hard to reproduce

behavior that depends on context instead of intent

systems that are fragile by design

The problem is not verbosity.
The problem is ambiguity.


Ambiguity is not a syntax issue

Ambiguity is often treated as a stylistic choice.

It’s not.

It’s a design failure.

When a language allows:

implicit type conversions

inferred intent without explicit declaration

multiple meanings for the same construct

behavior that changes silently across contexts

It is no longer helping the developer —
it is guessing.

And guessing does not scale.


Why verbosity is not the enemy

Verbosity is visible.
Ambiguity is invisible.

You can refactor verbosity.
You can’t refactor assumptions you don’t know exist.

In long-lived systems, clarity is cheaper than cleverness.

Explicit code:

documents intent

exposes boundaries

survives team changes

survives time


Treating ambiguity as a design error

This perspective led me to work on Klar, an experimental programming language that takes a hard stance:

no implicit behavior

no inferred intent

no ambiguous constructs

no hidden boundaries between languages or contexts

If something matters, it must be stated explicitly.
If behavior is important, it must be written.

The language should not guess.


This is not about being beginner-friendly

Strictness is often confused with hostility.

Klar does not try to be friendly at first glance.
It optimizes for:

clarity

predictability

long-term stability

polyglot system boundaries

Learning curves are temporary.
Ambiguity debt is permanent.


Final thought

Implicit behavior feels fast — until it isn’t.
Verbosity feels slow — until you need to understand a system years later.

When designing languages or systems meant to live long,
ambiguity is more dangerous than verbosity.


If you’re curious, the project and its manifesto live 👉 here 👈

Top comments (0)