> For this reason, programming languages, at least how we understand them today, have reached a terminal state. I could easily make a new language now, especially with the help of Claude Code et al, but there would never be any reason for any other engineer to use it.

This is an interesting opinion.

I feel we are nowhere near the terminal state for programming languages. Just as we didn't stop inventing math after arithmetic, we will always need to invent higher abstractions to help us reason beyond what is concrete (for example, imaginary numbers). A lot of electrical engineering wouldn't be possible to reason about without imaginary numbers. So new higher abstractions -- always necessary, in my opinion.

That said, I feel your finer point resonates -- about how new languages might not need to be constrained to the limitations of human ergonomics. In fact, this opens up new space of languages that can transcend human intuition because they are not written for humans to comprehend (yet are provably "correct").

As engineers, we care about human intuition because we are concerned about failure modes. But what if we could evolve along a more theoretical direction, similar to the one Haskell took? Haskell is basically "executable category theory" with some allowances for humans. Even with those tradeoffs, Haskell remains hard for most humans to write, but what if we could create a better Haskell?

Then farther along, what if we created a LEAN-adjacent language, not for mathematical proofs, but for writing programs? We could throw in formal methods (TLA+) type thinking. Today formal methods give you a correctness proof, but are disconnected to implementation (AWS uses TLA+ for modeling distributed systems, but the final code was not generated from TLA+, so there's disconnect). What if one day we can write a spec, and it generates a TLA+ proof, which we can then use to generate code?

In this world, the code generator is simply a compiler -- from mathematically rigorous spec to machine code.

(that said, I have to check myself. I wonder what this would look like in a world full of exceptions, corner cases, and ambiguities that cannot be modeled well? Tukey's warning comes to mind: "Far better an approximate answer to the right question, than an exact answer to the wrong question")