Figma’s not a design tool — it’s a Rube Goldberg machine for avoiding code
The absurdity of spending countless hours crafting interactive designs in a medium no one will ever use.
Somewhere, a designer is meticulously adjusting auto-layout settings in Figma — crafting an intricate set of nested components, master variants, and esoteric constraints — all to simulate the behavior of a simple button.
They pat themselves on the back, believing they’ve mastered digital design. Meanwhile, a developer glances at the file, sighs, and codes the button in five minutes.
This, my friends, is the state of design today — a profession increasingly dominated by individuals who have convinced themselves that learning to code is beneath them, but will spend hours constructing elaborate and needlessly complex prototypes in Figma — like someone determined to build a Rube Goldberg machine to flip a pancake, all because they refuse to touch a spatula.
For those who don’t know, a Rube Goldberg machine is a deliberately complicated and impractical contraption built to perform a simple task in the most indirect way imaginable — like setting off a series of dominoes, gears, levers, and pulleys just to pour a cup of coffee. Sure, it works in theory, but it’s needlessly complicated, inefficient, and disconnected from how things function in reality.
Similarly, designers crafting elaborate prototypes in Figma to mimic basic digital interactions are essentially building digital Rube Goldberg machines. If you’re going to spend hours creating intricate simulations in Figma, you might as well put that effort directly into code — because in the end, code is where your designs must ultimately function.
The cognitive dissonance of no-code designers
A funny thing has happened in the design world. While other technical fields are expanding their skill sets — marketers are learning SQL and Python to better analyze data and automate tasks, product managers are embracing programming languages to enhance collaboration with developers, and copywriters are using automation to streamline content creation — some designers seem to be moving in the opposite direction.
Instead of embracing even a rudimentary understanding of HTML, CSS, or JavaScript, designers have retreated into a fortress of abstraction. They’ll tweak their Figma files endlessly, push back on any technical constraints, and then smugly hand over their “perfect” design — only to be baffled when development comes back with a hundred questions about feasibility.
The irony? I’ve seen designers on Reddit complain about how developers “never implement their vision correctly.”
Newsflash — If you don’t understand even basic developer language, don’t be surprised when your work gets lost in translation.
The myth of the “pure” designer
The argument against learning code often goes something like this:
“Designers should focus on design. Learning code limits creativity. It’s not our job to worry about development.”
Cute sentiment. But here’s the problem — design, at its core, has always been constrained by medium and execution. Architects don’t just sketch fantasy structures and expect engineers to figure it out. Industrial designers don’t just create wild, unbuildable chair concepts and assume factories will make it work.
And yet, digital designers somehow believe they are the exception — that they can create whatever they want in Figma and just toss it over the wall.
A “pure” designer who refuses to learn code is like a playwright who refuses to understand how a stage works. Sure, you can write grandiose scenes where a castle explodes into fireworks while a dragon skydives through the wreckage, but don’t be shocked when the director hands your script back and says, “Yeah, we can’t do that.”
Figma mastery — the designer’s security blanket
Let’s be clear — Figma is a fantastic tool. But the obsession with making it the tool — turning it into an entire ecosystem where designers never have to interact with code — is a symptom of a deeper problem.
I get it — I’m old enough to remember when Flash was the Figma of its time, and I loved it. I could build entire websites without touching a line of code. Unlike Figma, though, we could actually publish those sites without rebuilding them elsewhere.
But when Flash was killed off, I learned to code — and that turned out to be a great thing. It gave me an invaluable skill that allows me to create and communicate in the digital space with a level of precision and fluency I wouldn’t trade for anything.
The industry has coddled digital designers into thinking they can exist in a bubble of vector shapes and auto-layouts, building increasingly complex systems of components, design tokens, and variants — all while actively avoiding the fundamental principles of the medium they are designing for.
Imagine a chef who refuses to touch a stove but insists they should still be in charge of the restaurant’s menu. Or a car designer who never bothers to learn about aerodynamics. That’s what a Figma-only designer is — a person who obsesses over visual perfection but has no grasp of how their work will actually function in the real world.
The fear of coding usually stems from uncertainty, not complexity
Let’s not sugarcoat it — learning code isn’t hard. This isn’t about becoming a full-stack engineer or writing production-level React components. We’re talking about basic web literacy — understanding how CSS affects layout, why JavaScript controls interactivity, and how browsers actually render design.
But too many designers cling to the excuse that learning code is too technical, too left-brained, or not creative enough. And yet, these same people will gleefully spend hours wrestling with Figma’s prototype settings, constructing elaborate, component libraries that require a PhD to decipher.
So let’s call it what it is — fear. Not of the code itself, but of being held accountable. I get it, I’ve been there. When I first started, coding felt like this huge, scary thing. Because once you actually understand how it works, you can’t just blame developers for your designs falling apart.
Time to grow up, designers
Design is a craft. And a real craftsperson understands the tools, materials, and constraints of their trade. Digital designers who refuse to learn even the basics of front-end development are like architects who have never set foot on a construction site. They are spectators in their own profession — content to create artifacts, rather than real, usable products.
So, if you’re a designer who still thinks code isn’t your concern, here’s my advice — drop the Rube Goldberg act, pick up the damn spatula, and start cooking. You might just find that the pancakes turn out better.
Don’t miss out! Join my email list and receive the latest content.
