[mark242]

Many years ago, java compilers, though billed out as a multiple-platform write-once-run-anywhere solution, those compilers would output different bytecode that would behave in interesting and sometimes unpredictable fashion. You would be inside jdb, trying to debug why the compiler did what it did.

This is not exactly that, but it is one step up. Having agents output code that then gets compiled/interpreted/whatever, based upon contextual instruction, feels very, very familiar to engineers who have ever worked close to the metal.

"Old fashioned", in this aspect, would be putting guardrails in place so that you knew that what the agent/compiler was creating was what you wanted. Many years ago, that was binaries or bytecode packaged with lots of symbols for debugging. Today, that's more automated testing.

[anu7df]

You are ignoring the obvious difference between errors introduced while translating one near-formal-intent-clear language to another as opposed to ambiguous-natural-language to code done through a non-deterministic intermediary. At some point in the future the non-deterministic intermediary will become stable enough (when temperature is low and model versions won't affect output much) but the ambiguity of the prompting language is still going to remain an issue. Hence, read before commit will always be a requirement I think. A good friend of mine wrote somewhere that at about 5 agents or so per project is when he is the bottleneck. I respect that assessment. Trust but verify. This way of getting faster output by removing that bottleneck altogether is, at least for me, not a good path forward.

[reedlaw]

Unfortunately, reading before merge commit is not always a firm part of human team work. Neither reading code nor test coverage by themselves are sufficient to ensure quality.