Programming languages are structured and have specifications. It is possible to know what code will do just by reading it.

▲

9rx 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Well designed ones do, at least. LLMs, in their infancy, still bring a lot of undefined behaviour, which is you end up stuck in the code for a few minutes -> compile -> wait -> repeat cycle. But that is not a desirable property and won't remain acceptable as the technology matures.

▲

recursive 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't see any way this is changing, acceptable or not.

	▲	9rx 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is quite possible the tools will never improve beyond where they sit today, sure, but then usage will naturally drift away from that fatiguing use (not all use, obviously). The constant compile/wait cycle is exhausting exactly because it is not productive. Businesses are currently willing to accept that lack of productivity as an investment into figuring out how to tame the tools. There is a lot of hope that all the problems can be solved if we keep trying to solve them. And, in fairness, we have gotten a lot closer than we were just a year or so ago towards that end, so the optimism currently remains strong. However, that cannot go on forever. At some point the investment has to prove itself, else the plug will be pulled. And yes, it may ultimately be a dead end. Absolutely. It wouldn't be the first failure in software development.