[lolinder]

What you're describing is the siren call of No Code, which has been tempting manager-types for decades and which has so far failed every single time.

The trouble with No Code is that your first paragraph is already my job description: I plan out and document and refine the structure of a problem and its architectural solution while simultaneously developing the system itself. The "sufficient explanation of the goals/problem" is the code—anything less is totally insufficient. And once I have the code, it is both the fully-documented problem and the spec for the solution.

I won't pretend to know the final end state for these tools, but it's definitely not that engineers will write natural-language specs and the LLMs will translate them, because code (in varying degrees of high- and low-level languages) is the preferred language for solution specification for a reason. It's precise, unambiguous, and well understood by all engineers on a project. There is no need to be filled by swapping that out with natural language unless you're taking engineers out of the loop entirely.

[quick_brown_fox]

> The "sufficient explanation of the goals/problem" is the code—anything less is totally insufficient.

somewhat in that spirit, I like Gerald Sussman's interpretation of software development as "problem solving by debugging-almost right plans", in e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYzvQ1v8Ww

[snikeris]

The point is also brought up a few times in SICP:

> First, we want to establish the idea that a computer language is not just a way of getting a computer to perform operations, but rather that it is a novel formal medium for expressing ideas about methodology. Thus, programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.

[szvsw]

I mostly agree with what you were saying, but I don’t think I was advocating for “no code” entirely, and certainly not the elimination of engineers entirely.

I was trying to articulate the idea that code generation tools will become increasingly sophisticated and capable, but still be tools that require operation by engineers for maximal effect. I see them as just another abstraction mechanism that will exist within the various layers that separate a dev from the metal. That doesn’t mean the capabilities of such tools are limited to where they are today, and it doesn’t mean that programmers won’t need to learn new ways of operating their tools.

I also hinted at it, but there’s nothing to say that our orchestration of such systems needs to be done in natural language. We are already skilled at representing procedures and systems in code like you said; there’s no reason to think we wouldn’t be adept at learning new languages specialized for specifying higher order designs in a more compact but still rigorous form to codegen systems. it seems reasonable to think that we will start developing DSLs and the like for communicating program and system design to codegen systems in a precise manner. One obvious way of thinking about that is by specifying interfaces and test cases in a rigorous manner and letting the details be filled in - obviously attempts at that now exhibit lots of poor implementation decisions inside of the methods, but that is not a universal phenomenon that will always hold.

[noddybear]

The DSL paradigm is generally how I go about using LLMs on new projects, I.e use the LLM to design a language that best represents the abstractions and concepts of the project - and once the language is defined, the LLM can express usecases with the DSL and ultimately convert them into an existing high level language like Python.

[f1shy]

That is s great idea. I’ve used ChatGPT to help me define the names of the functions of an API. Next time I face a problem where it calls for DSL I will give it a try.

[szvsw]

Do you have any repos or examples you can share? Would love to see an example of that in action!

[rramadass]

I am not the person you asked the question of;

Earlier an HN user had given an example of using Prolog as an intermediate DSL in the prompt to an LLM so as to transform English declarative -> Imperative code - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41549823

[szvsw]

Yep, this makes a lot of sense.

In general, we already have plenty of mechanisms for specifying interfaces/api specs, tests, relationships, etc in a declarative but more formal manner than natural language which probably all work , and I can only imagine we will continue to see the development of more options tailored to this use case.