Malleable Software

Software that users can reshape from within — including cheap, disposable, self-made tools — revived as AI collapses the cost of modification.

Also known as: malleable software, Internal Reprogrammability, reimagining, disposable software, Sketches, sketches

How authors use it

Oldest first (extraction date when no publication date is known).

AuthorTheir termTheir meaning
Radar Trends to Watch: May 2026
Mike Loukides and Claude · 2026-04-20
reimaginingUsing agentic programming to rebuild existing tools from scratch based on current needs rather than incrementally patching legacy designs (e.g., Cloudflare's EmDash vs. WordPress)
Fragments: May 5
Martin Fowler · 2026-05-05
Internal ReprogrammabilityThe ability to reshape one's own development environment from within — a property of Smalltalk/Lisp cultures that agents are reviving
Why cultivating agency matters more than cultivating skills in the AI era | Max Schoening (Head of Product, Notion)
Lenny Rachitsky, Max Schoening · 2026-05-09
malleable softwareSoftware that works closer to the interest of the people who use it than the corporation that makes it — users can modify behavior, not just configure settings. Positioned between locked-down apps and run-your-own-Linux.
Applying Best Simple System for Now for Software Design
Ben Linders · 2026-05-09
sketchesExploratory code written to test ideas, held to a lower standard than production code but still requiring good naming and simplicity
Bliki: Vibe Coding
Martin Fowler · 2026-05-21
Disposable softwareSoftware built for a limited audience (often just the author or a small group) where low quality, weak maintainability, and accepted risk are tolerable.
The case for making your own apps
Casey Newton · 2026-07-22
disposable softwareCheap, often single-purpose or single-use software built for a market of one (or a small team), with no expectation of durability, polish, or a market beyond the maker — 'weird,' 'very personal' apps that are fine to throw away.

Documents (8)

Propositions touching this concept (3)

By publication month, oldest first (extraction month when no publication date is known).

2026-02

2026-05

Tensions

Is code a durable artifact humans must keep reading, or an ephemeral byproduct regenerated from a spec?
from: What did the participants of the Thoughtworks 'Future of Software Engineering' Europe retreat (mid-2026) conclude about how agentic AI is reshaping software engineering?
Assessment: The retreat's own 'largest divide' (Ördög). It is unresolved inside the room and inside the individual essays: Herlein concedes the deterministic 'code is the better spec' counter is 'hard to wave off', and Ördög reports being ironically pulled toward the dark-factory camp by her own good-code practices. The crux is whether a fuzzy prose spec can ever be the durable source of truth when the stated quality bar is verifiability — a tension none of them resolves.
How much of the build pipeline should run with no human reading the code (the 'dark factory')?
from: What did the participants of the Thoughtworks 'Future of Software Engineering' Europe retreat (mid-2026) conclude about how agentic AI is reshaping software engineering?
Assessment: Not simple optimism vs pessimism but a disagreement about preconditions and hidden costs. Ocytko's is a projection of where tooling is heading; Bangser and Verraes both supply reasons the projection is unsafe by default — learning-loss and missing prerequisites. Bangser has the stronger argument that the loss is structural (you cannot buy back organisational learning), which even an improving platform does not address.
Reversibility as a hedge vs a one-way commitment to deeper autonomy.
from: What did the participants of the Thoughtworks 'Future of Software Engineering' Europe retreat (mid-2026) conclude about how agentic AI is reshaping software engineering?
Assessment: Incompatible risk models. Verraes treats deep AI-dependence as the danger to insure against; Herlein treats not-committing as the existential danger. They cannot both be the rational strategy: reversibility trades some upside for exit options, while flywheel-commitment trades exit options for compounding lead. The tie-breaker is empirical (will access/economics deteriorate?) and neither has evidence — Fowler's 'tokenpocalypse' data leans slightly toward Verraes.
Does low-level code quality matter intrinsically, or only instrumentally (via token economics)?
from: What did the participants of the Thoughtworks 'Future of Software Engineering' Europe retreat (mid-2026) conclude about how agentic AI is reshaping software engineering?
Assessment: The disagreement is about the grounds of the fundamentals-revival, not just its truth. If quality matters only via token cost (Verraes, and Fowler's proxy), the case for it is contingent on token economics and evaporates if tokens get cheap; if it is intrinsic (Ördög), it survives cheaper tokens. This makes the popular slogan 'quality still matters' quietly unstable — the same conclusion rests on incompatible foundations.
Will the classic fundamentals (especially DDD / domain modelling) actually deliver this time — is the revival evidenced or merely asserted?
from: What did the participants of the Thoughtworks 'Future of Software Engineering' Europe retreat (mid-2026) conclude about how agentic AI is reshaping software engineering?
Assessment: The single slogan 'fundamentals matter more' spans concrete evidence (Verraes), unargued assertion with admitted bias (Nilsson), and active skepticism (Edwards-Alexander) — from attendees of one retreat. This directly exposes the 'the fundamentals are agreed' assumption below: the cohort's flagship convergence is doing a lot of work with very uneven support underneath it.
Is code a durable artifact to be maintained, or an ephemeral byproduct regenerated from a more durable source (spec/objective)?
from: What is the future of software development in the agentic/AI age?
Assessment: The most-cited open question of the corpus, and genuinely unresolved (Herlein: 'no consensus here. None.'). The 'code is the better spec' counter is strong — code is unambiguous, executable, deterministic, whereas a prose spec is reinterpreted each run, which sits in tension with verifiability being the quality bar. Ruby's move is the most defensible: it dissolves the code-vs-spec fight by locating durability in the evaluation rather than any representation. Verraes and Ördög expose the load-bearing empirical unknown — nobody has data on regenerate-vs-patch cost or on long-term evolvability of agent-maintained code.
How far should software be automated — toward the fully-autonomous dark/software factory, or held back to bounded autonomy with humans in the loop?
from: What is the future of software development in the agentic/AI age?
Assessment: The spectrum runs from Ördög/Ocytko (full automation is arriving and desirable) to Bangser/Ruby/Verraes (deliberately withhold the last step). The decelerationists have the better of the safety argument today — Ruby's 'nobody will cede the blast radius' and Bangser's 'removing humans removes learning' identify concrete, unmet prerequisites — but Ördög's context-dependence (backends, COBOL) shows the boundary is domain-specific, not absolute. The real disagreement is less about capability than about who absorbs the blast radius when an autonomous fix goes wrong.
Strategically, is the right move to accelerate adoption to build a permanent lead, or to decelerate and hedge against AI's risks?
from: What is the future of software development in the agentic/AI age?
Assessment: Nearly opposite bets: Herlein optimizes for a world where AI keeps getting cheaper and better and first-movers win permanently; Verraes and Fowler optimize for a world where AI gets costlier, curtailed, or unreliable. Herlein's 'permanent moat' rests on flywheel logic plus a single secondhand anecdote and ignores technology-diffusion catch-up dynamics; Verraes and Fowler's hedge is cheap insurance but under-examines whether reversion is actually achievable once specs, agents, and toolchains are deeply embedded and human familiarity has eroded. The disagreement is ultimately a bet on the trajectory of token economics, which nobody in the corpus can price.

Open gaps (18)