Maybe to get a real breakthrough we have to make programming languages / tools better suited for LLM strengths not fuss so much about making it write code we like. What we need is correct code not nice looking code.
The bitter lesson is that the best languages / tools are the ones for which the most quality training data exists, and that's pretty much necessarily the same languages / tools most commonly used by humans.
> Correct code not nice looking code
"Nice looking" is subjective, but simple, clear, readable code is just as important as ever for projects to be long-term successful. Arguably even more so. The aphorism about code being read much more often than it's written applies to LLMs "reading" code as well. They can go over the complexity cliff very fast. Just look at OpenClaw.
Is it though? I'm a long-time code purist, but I am beginning to wonder about the assumptions underlying our vocation.
That's literally the thing they suggested to move away from. That is just an issue when using tools designed for us.
Make them write in formal verification languages and we only have to understand the types.
To be clear, I don't think this is a good idea, at least not yet, but we do not have to always understand the code.
Let it write a black box no human understands. Give the means of production away.