Yet again we can pull out Edsger W.Dijkstra's 1978 article, "On the foolishness of "natural language programming""

"In order to make machines significantly easier to use, it has been proposed (to try) to design machines that we could instruct in our native tongues. this would, admittedly, make the machines much more complicated, but, it was argued, by letting the machine carry a larger share of the burden, life would become easier for us. It sounds sensible provided you blame the obligation to use a formal symbolism as the source of your difficulties. But is the argument valid? I doubt."

▲

stevekrouse 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Such a perfect quote! Thank you! Will add it to my collection

▲

woeirua 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Djikstra wasn’t a god. He’s going to be wrong on this one.

▲

bigstrat2003 3 hours ago | parent [-]

He's not wrong. People are just drinking the AI kool-aid too hard to realize that the emperor has no clothes.

	▲	esafak an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How come it works with humans? Give seasoned engineers a spec and they'll create a working product. Many software companies are created and guided on the verbal directions of people who don't code.

▲

bitwize 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Dijkstra also mockingly described software engineering as "the doomed discipline" because its goal was to determine "how to program if you cannot".

"How to program if you cannot" has been solved now.