Comment by sanjayjc

I share your concern. I'm flummoxed by the prevalent sentiment that code is the nasty underbelly of software. To me, a programming language is a medium both for precisely directing a computer's behavior and for precisely communicating a process to fellow programmers (cue the Alan Perlis quote [1].)

I will concede that mainstream code is often characterized by excessive verbosity and boilerplate. This I attribute to the immaturity of today's crop of programming languages. Techniques like language-oriented-programming [2] hint at a path I find appealing: DSLs that are tailored to the problem while promising more precision than a natural language specification could.

To speculate, I could see LLMs helping during the creation of a DSL (surfacing limitations in the DSL's design) and when adding features to a DSL, to help migrate code written in the old version to the new one.

Perhaps DSLs aren't the future. However will there be as much interest in designing new and superior programming languages now that code is seen as little more than assembly language?

[1] https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/b...

[2] https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/why-lop-why-racket.html