[smolder]

LLMs aren't like a screwdriver at all, the analogy doesn't work. I think I was clear. LLMs aren't useful outside the domain of what they were trained on. They are copycats. To really innovate on software design means going outside what has been done before, which an LLM won't help you do.

[mccoyb]

No, you weren't clear, nor are you correct: you shared FUD about something it seems you have not tried, because testing your claims with a recent agentic system would dispel them.

I've had great success teaching Claude Code use DSLs I've created in my research. Trivially, it has never seen exactly these DSLs before -- yet it has correctly created complex programs using those DSLs, and indeed -- they work!

Have you had frontier agents work on programs in "esoteric" (unpopular) languages (pick: Zig, Haskell, Lisp, Elixir, etc)?

I don't see clarity, and I'm not sure if you've tried any of your claims for real.

[smolder]

This is desperate rebuttal from ignorance.

My point stands. You haven't innovated, you've just leaned on an LLM to work with your unoriginal DSL. I'm sure it's worth 100 megawatt-hours.