It's rosy, but there are actual theoretical limits (like the halting problem) which act as a bedrock in that magic. Eventually we might find a way around, but we cant be sure of it now.
Even something like the Halting Problem does not rule out as much as people impute it to. It just proves you can't write a program that can analyze all programs, but doesn't mean you can't analyze some programs. However I disagree with your concluding sentence - the whole point of a proof is that we are sure of it now, there is no way around. I would instead phrase it as, we may in the future find that the things we're interested in doing need not run into this barrier, because we refine the notion of what we actually want to accomplish.
I thought the comment was both interesting and illustrative. Sure, in CS there's a ton of things still to do. But my comment wasn't about CS, it was about programming -- making things for people. The programs don't have to be provably correct or even consistent. That kind of stuff is the science part of programming which is completely different from the applied philosophy that is programming computers to make stuff people want.