|
|
|
|
|
by xj9
3522 days ago
|
|
Not at all. Good tools are very important, and we shouldn't stop working to make them better. What I disagree with is the idea that good enough tools can replace engineers without them becoming General AIs. Until we get to that point, there will be systems that need to be built that only professionals are qualified to work on. I'm not saying that we need licensing boards or any of that nonsense, just that nobody is going to merge poorly constructed code into an important project. |
|
Taking the Lego analogy further, even if I, an experienced Lego builder, can construct a set entirely in my head, and write a correct assembly script, building it physically is likely faster and certainly less error-prone.
Those kinds of goals are hard to achieve with software (especially considering what we have is already pretty good!), but I think they're a worthy pursuit.
Examples of language/interface design that seem strictly beneficial: (regardless of experience or project)
- Showing the result of [valid] code changes as soon as possible (a feedback problem);
- Disallowing invalid expressions (a consistency problem);
- Displaying relevant components (functions, libraries, APIs, variables, etc) (a visibility problem);
- Bringing documentation closer to code (making functionality obvious)
Eve tries to tackle some of those challenges, especially the documentation problem and the visibility problem.
Solving those issues can both improve productivity and bring more people into programming.