[falcor84]

I somewhat agree, but even then would argue that the proper level at which this understanding should reside is at the architecture and data flow invariants levels, rather than the code itself. And these can actually be enforced quite well as tests against human-authored diagrammatical specs.

[t43562]

If you don't fully understand the code how do you know it implements your architecture exactly and without doing it in a way that has implications you hadn't thought of?

As a trivial example I just found a piece of irrelevant crap in some code I generated a couple of weeks ago. It worked in the simple cases which is why I never spotted it but would have had some weird effects in more complicated ones. It was my prompting that didn't explain well enough perhaps but how was I to know I failed without reading the code?

[jbvlkt]

Exactly. We do not have another artifact than code which can be deterministically converted to program. That is reason we have to still read the code. Prompt is not final product in development process.

[mort96]

I disagree. The code itself matters too.