> Agentic coding is the future, but people have not yet adapted. We went from punch cards to assembly to FORTRAN to C to JavaScript; each step adding more abstractions.

I don't completely disagree (I've argued the same point myself). But one critical difference between the LLM layer and all of those others you listed, is that LLMs are non-deterministic and all those other layers are. I'm not sure how that changes the dynamic, but surely it does.

▲

CharlieDigital 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The LLM can be non-deterministic, but in the end, as long as we have compilers and integration tests, isn't it the same? You go from non-deterministic human interpretation of requirements and specs into a compiled, deterministic state machine. Now you have a non-deterministic coding agent doing the same and simply replacing the typing portion of that work.

So long as you supply the agent well-curated set of guidance, it should ultimately produce more consistent code with higher quality than if the same task were given to a team of random humans of varying skill and experience levels.

The key now is how much a team invests in writing the high quality guidance in the first place.

▲

dehsge 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Compilers can never be error free for non trivial statements. This is outlined in Rices theorem. It’s one of the reasons we have observability/telemetry as well as tests.

	▲	CharlieDigital 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's fine, but this also applies to human written code and human written code will have even more variance by skill and experience.

▲

paganel 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The unspoken truth is that tests were never meant to cover all aspects of a piece of software running and doing its thing, that's where the "human mind(s)" that had actually built the system and brought it to life was supposed to come in and add the real layer of veracity. In other words, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like duck" was never enough, no matter how much duck-related testing was in place.