muesli
I build open-source software and make little gadgets.
From a time when email was cool. Hard to distinguish from a good programmer.
The actual question nobody seems to be asking:
Can we create a human & machine readable description of what software is supposed to mean, independently of the implementation that realizes it?
Because if generated code is the future, code stops being the source of truth. A programming language describes the implementation, but it isn't the specification.
The spec needs to become the program and we'll need languages built around that idea.
Programming languages are all like different buildings:
- C++ is an abandoned factory that's somehow still in production.
- Go is an operating room.
- Rust is a nuclear power plant control room.
- Python is a university campus.
- Java is corporate headquarters.
- JavaScript is a bouncy castle. On fire.
Unicode would be considered a terrible standard if it wasn't almost entirely dedicated to cleaning up everyone else's mess.
People worry AI will replace programmers.
Lol. Have you seen the code it trains on? Half the internet is one regex away from a national emergency.
Coding agents could be incredible if they respected the workflow of people who actually write software.
"Look! I changed 83 files in 7 minutes!"
Yes. That's the problem.
Holding onto anger is like swallowing poison and expecting someone else to die.
We keep saying we're "adding AI to our app".
I fear that'll age about as well as "adding internet support".
We still think in terms of applications because that's the paradigm we grew up with. But perhaps an app was always just a temporary interface between human intent and, uhm, computation?
In suspect in the future, apps become capabilities. The AI becomes the interface layer: dynamically rendering a UI, starting a voice chat, or silently getting things done.
The app was never the product.
I know it's just a joke, but since I checked before I wrote my post and tried to find the author of the quote: it was not Buddha :-)