Comment by jiggawatts
2 days ago
I was just thinking of this exact comic, which is etched into my brain for some reason.
The obvious counter to this is that we've been going through this evolution of increasing abstraction as developers for nearly a century now.
In the 40s and well into the 60s, most code was written either as straight up machine code or an assembly language. MS DOS is almost entirely assembly.
UNIX ushered in the era of "high level" portable languages like C, Fortran, and Pascal that some developers hated because they felt like they were losing the fine-grained control that they had with assembly. The compilers just "weren't as good" as humans at optimisation!
Then the compilers got better and people started using garbage-collected languages like Perl, Python, Java, JavaScript, and C#. Similarly, many people bemoaned the lack of control over memory allocation, lower efficiency, etc.
We're simply stepping up to the next level of abstraction.
Look at it this way: decades ago when I first discovered C++ templates, it felt like waving a magic wand in the direction of the computer. It blew my mind that I could simply substitute "float" instead of "double" in between some angle brackets and the compiler would write reams of code for me!
We simply have better magic wands and more powerful spells now.
> We simply have better magic wands and more powerful spells now.
Wouldn't it be nice though if the incantation of the same spell would always do the same thing every time ? You see that's how my old wand and spells worked.
Look at it from the perspective of a manager above individual developers. Their instructions to those devs are already a series of non-deterministic incantations. They ask for things in English and get something back in Git a week later!
We've just pushed that indirection down a level from managers to ICs.
The ICs are shocked and surprised that this level of imprecision is allowed.
Their managers are not shocked at all, this is normal for them!
The managers, aren’t on the hook for actually understanding and delivering the work, or fixing the system a week later when the vagaries of their wand-waving request come home to roost though.
1 reply →
You're applying the doorman fallacy here. This has been discussed a lot. Honestly, the sooner the industry accepts that we aren't there yet nor does the current architecture enable us do get there, the sooner we can make progress towards that ideal state.
One day it will.
Not with LLMs, it won't. (The probabilistic prediction property prevents proper persistent programmable predictability)
1 reply →
> We simply have better magic wands and more powerful spells now.
But tainted 20-40% by bouts of Wild Magic which make the outcome entirely nondeterministic, despite the best protection wards we can conjure.
I have found, both in my commercial and OSS work, that getting better at producing protection wards reduces the non-determinism to somewhere in-between 1-10%.
Case in point: writing our own linters.
You can reduce pregnancy to 0.00001% and there'll still be a baby. As in, "you can't be half-pregnant". A tool is either deterministic (within some limits [0]) or it isn't.
[0] For example, for the purpose of driving a nail, if you know how to use it, a hammer is pretty straightforward tool, and what happens depends pretty much on how you use it, and what you use it on. But of course the handle can break, there could be a manufacturing defect. Just like your RAM can be faulty or your computer infected, and suddenly C doesn't behave according to the standard anymore.
But for the purpose of the discussion a hammer is still a deterministic tool, and even though we don't even fully understand everything about physics, we understand enough about hammers and nails that at least many people with material that isn't faulty can use them "blindly" (not literally, in this case) every day, without any surprises. It isn't heavier on the handle end or has a head made of glass in even 0.000000001% of uses. You might say because magic isn't real and hammers follow the laws of physics, as obscure as those may be to us, that never, ever happens. They can be faulty in all sorts of ways but they will never be 10x bigger or 10x smaller between one swing and the next, and so on.
10 replies →
Hmm.
Using e.g. Claude code: I could see this as next step: "plain text editor" progresess to "with autocomplete"; using an LLM coding agent is then an abstraction over editing code.
Using e.g. LLM-based system: natural language is "higher level" than program code. -- The maximal reading of "LLMs are higher level abstraction and higher level wins" would be: in the future, we'll all be writing only with natural language, never running any compiled programs.
I can see "LLM based coding" as a lasting paradigm shift. But, I don't see "just give your text instructions to the markdown file" as something that will be the predominant way of programming.
Markdown instructions are useful as durable context, but they do not replace programming. Their job is to keep intent out of a transient chat so both the developer and agent can revisit it. The actual constraints still belong in code: types, tests, linters, and dependency rules. Natural language can explain why a boundary matters; executable checks determine whether a change respects it. That feels more like a persistent layer around the programming workflow than a new programming language.
the only difference is that the compiler always looks at the whole code and if it says it can do something, it can, always, and without fail.