I get what he's pointing at: building teaches you things the spec can't, and iteration often reveals the real problem.

That said, the framing feels a bit too poetic for engineering. Software isn't only craft, it's also operations, risk, time, budget, compliance, incident response, and maintenance by people who weren't in the room for the "lump of clay" moment. Those constraints don't make the work less human; they just mean "authentic creation" isn't the goal by itself.

For me the takeaway is: pursue excellence, but treat learning as a means to reliability and outcomes. Tools (including LLMs) are fine with guardrails, clear constraints up front and rigorous review/testing after, so we ship systems we can reason about, operate, and evolve (not just artefacts that feel handcrafted).

> That said, the framing feels a bit too poetic for engineering.

I wholeheartedly disagree but I tend to believe that's going to be highly dependent on what type of developer a person is. One who leans towards the craftsmanship side or one who leans towards the deliverables side. It will also be impacted by the type of development they are exposed to. Are they in an environment where they can even have a "lump of clay" moment or is all their time spent on systems that are too old/archaic/complex/whatever to ever really absorb the essence of the problem the code is addressing?

The OP's quote is exactly how I feel about software. I often don't know exactly what I'm going to build. I start with a general idea and it morphs towards excellence by the iteration. My idea changes, and is sharpened, as it repeatedly runs into reality. And by that I mean, it's sharpened as I write and refactor the code.

I personally don't have the same ability to do that with code review because the amount of time I spend reviewing/absorbing the solution isn't sufficient to really get to know the problem space or the code.