[loubbrad]

> I think there is a section of programmer who actually do like the actual typing of letters, numbers and special characters into a computer...

Reminds me of this excerpt from Richard Hamming's book:

> Finally, a more complete, and more useful, Symbolic Assembly Program (SAP) was devised—after more years than you are apt to believe during which most programmers continued their heroic absolute binary programming. At the time SAP first appeared I would guess about 1% of the older programmers were interested in it—using SAP was “sissy stuff”, and a real programmer would not stoop to wasting machine capacity to do the assembly. Yes! Programmers wanted no part of it, though when pressed they had to admit their old methods used more machine time in locating and fixing up errors than the SAP program ever used. One of the main complaints was when using a symbolic system you do not know where anything was in storage—though in the early days we supplied a mapping of symbolic to actual storage, and believe it or not they later lovingly pored over such sheets rather than realize they did not need to know that information if they stuck to operating within the system—no! When correcting errors they preferred to do it in absolute binary addresses.

[layer8]

I think this is beside the point, because the crucial change with LLMs is that you don’t use a formal language anymore to specify what you want, and get a deterministic output from that. You can’t reason with precision anymore about how what you specify maps to the result. That is the modal shift that removes the “fun” for a substantial portion of the developer workforce.

[convolvatron]

its not not about fun. when I'm going through the actual process of writing a function, I think about design issues. about how things are named, about how the errors from this function flow up. about how scheduling is happening. about how memory is managed. I compare the code to my ideal, and this is the time where I realize that my ideal is flawed or incomplete.

I think alot of us dont get everything specced out up front, we see how things fit, and adjust accordingly. most of the really good ideas I've had were not formulated in the abstract, but realizations had in the process of spelling things out.

I have a process, and it works for me. Different people certainly have other ones, and other goals. But maybe stop telling me that instead of interacting with the compiler directly its absolutely necessary that instead I describe what I want to a well meaning idiot, and patiently correct them, even though they are going to forget everything I just said in a moment.

[hackable_sand]

That's not it for me, personally.

I do all of my programming on paper, so keystrokes and formal languages are the fast part. LLMs are just too slow.

[visarga]

> because the crucial change with LLMs is that you don’t use a formal language anymore to specify what you want, and get a deterministic output from that

You don't just code, you also test, and your safety is just as good as your test coverage and depth. Think hard about how to express your code to make it more testable. That is the single way we have now to get back some safety.

But I argue the manual inspection of code and thinking it through in your head is still not strict coding, it is vibe-testing as well, only code backed by tests is not vibe-based. If needed use TLA+ (generated by LLM) to test, or go as deep as necessary to test.

[zahlman]

I don't know what book you're talking about, but it seems that you intend to compare the switch to an AI-based workflow to using a higher-level language. I don't think that's valid at all. Nobody using Python for any ordinary purpose feels compelled to examine the resulting bytecode, for example, but a responsible programmer needs to keep tabs on what Claude comes up with, configure a dev environment that organizes the changes into a separate branch (as if Claude were a separate human member of a team) etc. Communication in natural language is fundamentally different from writing code; if it weren't, we'd be in a world with far more abundant documentation. (After all, that should be easier to write than a prompt, since you already have seen the system that the text will describe.)

[immibis]

> Nobody using Python for any ordinary purpose feels compelled to examine the resulting bytecode, for example,

The first people using higher level languages did feel compelled to. That's what the quote from the book is saying. The first HLL users felt compelled to check the output just like the first LLM users.

[Supermancho]

> you intend to compare the switch to an AI-based workflow to using a higher-level language.

That was the comparison made. AI is an eerily similar shift.

> I don't think that's valid at all.

I dont think you made the case by cherry picking what it can't do. This is exactly the same situation, as the time SAP appeared. There weren't symbols for every situation binary programmers were using at the time. This doesn't change the obvious and practical improvement that abstractions provided. Granted, I'm not happy about it, but I can't deny it either.

[quesera]

Contra your other replies, I think this is exactly the point.

I had an inkling that the feeling existed back then, but I had no idea it was documented so explicitly. Is this quote from The Art of Doing Science and Engineering?