In last week’s episode of the Beyond Coding podcast, Patrick, interviewed Kevin Powell about his approach to creating well-designed CSS solutions. In the interview, Kevin highlights his technique as “the path of least resistance”. This as an important concept in software design and development that goes well beyond the front-end.
Kevin’s approach follows a familiar pattern. We see a problem in front of us, in this case a new CSS layout, and design for the simplest case (mobile). Mobile layouts have fewer elements to worry about and no (or limited) resizing – so it’s much simpler to code for.
Proving something works for the simple case allows us to expand it for the complex case. This allows us to quickly test our ideas and keeps us motivated.
Motivation is an important part of developing successful software. Without developing mental tricks such as this to enable us to work through problems quickly, we don’t build up the confidence, concentration and momentum needed to work through tricky problems in depth.
The takeaway here is, if you want to get something accomplished, go simple. Get that feeling of achievement and come back to it later to refine it as you need to. Often the things we build the quickest, are the simplest and most effective. Achieving something quickly helps us stay motivated to continue.
We shouldn’t always take this path, but sometimes it’s the right choice.
The AI Conundrum
The Path of Least Resistance in the Age of AI
Since writing this post in 2022, the most talked-about path of least resistance in software engineering has become AI-assisted development. Tools like GitHub Copilot and Claude can produce working code in seconds, which is, of course, the ultimate quick win.
But the original principle still applies. Kevin Powell’s mobile-first approach works because the simple case is genuinely understood before expanding to the complex one. The developer is in control of the solution, even if they got there quickly.
AI-generated code is only a valid path of least resistance if the same conditions hold. Does it hit the brief? Does it introduce new debt? Can the team understand, maintain and extend it? If yes to all three, the path is legitimate. If not, you haven’t taken the path of least resistance; you’ve just deferred the complexity to someone else, at a later date, when it will cost more to fix.
The tool changes. The principle doesn’t.