> proves the point that optimal programs are very inhuman
Maybe there should be an AI that produces optimally-readable/understandable programs? That's what I would want if I was adding the output to a codebase.
Maybe there should be an AI that produces optimally-readable/understandable programs? That's what I would want if I was adding the output to a codebase.
A suboptimal implemented solution is a better than an optimal not implemented one.
Really? That's the first time I've heard that (and I've worked on vehicle routing).
Normally, the driver would get the next address they have to visit and would use satnav to work out how to get there. They don't need to "comprehend" the overall route.
Some if it looks pretty ok, especially where it overlaps with well established approaches.
This is why these systems are helpful in programming: they allow developers to think more about the design paradigms, and algorithmic solutions, rather than the fine grained code syntax and typing.
My hope (not prediction unfortunately, but *hope*) is that these systems will make people "better* programmers. This could happen by alleviating the requirement of typing out the code in a particular way, and allowing more time to really try out or think carefully about the correct solution for how to make their programs (i.e. multiprocessed, producer-consumers, distribute data with ipfs, faster algorithms, etc)
My experience so far (including -4) this isn't really true, even when focusing on those aspects. I'm cautiously optimistic this will get better.