> While working on Cutlet, though, I allowed Claude to generate every single line of code. I didn’t even read any of the code. Instead, I built guardrails to make sure it worked correctly (more on that later).

Impressive. As a practical matter, one wonders what th point would be in creating a new programming languages if the programmer no longer has to write or read code.

Programming languages are after all the interface that a human uses to give instructions to a computer. If you’re not writing or reading it, the language, by definition doesn’t matter.

The constraints enforced in the language still matter. A language which offers certain correctness guarantees may still be the most efficient way to build a particular piece of software even when it's a machine writing the code.

There may actually be more value in creating specialized languages now, not less. Most new languages historically go nowhere because convincing human programmers to spend the time it would take to learn them is difficult, but every AI coding bot will learn your new language as a matter of course after its next update includes the contents of your website.

a few months back I had a similar thought and started working on a language that was really verbose and human readable, think Cobal with influences from Swift. The core idea was that this would be a business language that business people would/could read if they needed to, so it could be used for financial and similar use cases, with built in logic engines similar to Prolog or Mercury. My idea was that once the language starts being coded by AI there are two directions to go, either we max efficiency and speed (basically let the AI code in assembly) or we lean the other way and max it for human error checking and clear outputs on how a process flows, so my theory was headed more in that direction. But of course I failed, I'd never made a programming language before (I've coded a long time, but that's not the same thing) and the AI's at the time combined with my lack of knowledge caused a spectacular failure. I still think my theory is correct though, especially if we want to see financial or business logic, having the code be more human readable to check for problems when even not a technical person, I still see a future where that is useful.

In the 90s people hoped Unified Modeling Language diagrams would generate software automatically. That mostly didn’t happen. But large language models might actually be the realization of that old dream. Instead of formal diagrams, we describe the system in natural language and the model produces the code. It reminds me of the old debates around visual web tools vs hand-written HTML. There seems to be a recurring pattern: every step up the abstraction ladder creates tension between people who prefer the new layer and those who want to stay closer to the underlying mechanics.

Roughly: machine code --> assembly --> C --> high-level languages --> frameworks --> visual tools --> LLM-assisted coding. Most of those transitions were controversial at the time, but in retrospect they mostly expanded the toolbox rather than replacing the lower layers.

One workflow I’ve found useful with LLMs is to treat them more like a code generator after the design phase. I first define the constraints, objects, actors, and flows of the system, then use structured prompts to generate or refine pieces of the implementation.

Like everything generated by LLMs though, it is built on the shoulders of giants - what will happen to software if no one is creating new programming languages anymore? Does that matter?

I don’t agree with the idea that programming languages don’t have an impact of an LLM to write code. If anything, I imagine that, all else being equal, a language where the compiler enforces multiple levels of correctness would help the AI get to a goal faster.

> Impressive. As a practical matter, one wonders what th point would be in creating a new programming languages if the programmer no longer has to write or read code.

I'm working on a language as well (hoping to debut by end of month), but the premise of the language is that it's designed like so:

1) It maximizes local reasoning and minimizes global complexity

2) It makes the vast majority of bugs / illegal states impossible to represent

3) It makes writing correct, concurrent code as maximally expressive as possible (where LLMs excel)

4) It maximizes optionality for performance increases (it's always just flipping option switches - mostly at the class and function input level, occassionaly at the instruction level)

The idea is that it should be as easy as possible for an LLM to write it (especially convert other languages to), and as easy as possible for you to understand it, while being almost as fast as absolutely perfect C code, and by virtue of the design of the language - at the human review phase you have minimal concerns of hidden gotcha bugs.

> If you’re not writing or reading it, the language, by definition doesn’t matter.

By what definition? It still matters if I write my app in Rust vs say Python because the Rust version still have better performance characteristics.

In principle (and we hope in practice) the person is still responsible for the consequences of running the code and so it remains important they can read and understand what has been generated.

Saves tokens. The main reason though is to manage performance for what techniques get used for specific use cases. In their case it seems to be about expressiveness in Bash.

I've been wondering if a diffusion model could just generate software as binary that could be fed directly into memory.

I have been building a game via a separate game logic library and Unity (which includes that independent library).. let's just say that over the last couple weeks I have 100% lost the need to do the coding myself. I keep iterating and have it improve and there are hundreds of unit tests.. I have a Unity MCP and it does 95% of the Unity work for me. Of course the real game will need custom designing and all that; but in terms of getting a complete prototype setup.... I am literally no longer the coder. I just did in a week what it would have taken me months and months and months to do. Granted Unity is still somewhat new to, but still.. even if you are an expert- it can immediately look at all your game objects and detect issues etc.

So yeah for some things we are already at the point of "I am not longer the coder, I am the architect".. and it's scary.