4 ms·

Well if specifications are sufficiently well determined I don't see why it can't be automated in principle.

version_five 5y ago
I tried and failed to find the xkcd that your comment is an obvious setup for. They talk about not needing to write code and instead writing a precise specification of the program's behavior, and the other person says "code, that's called code" (Ah, I see the sibling post linked to it, and it's not xkcd which explains why I didnt find it)
aranelsurion 5y ago
not to be dismissive, but it reminds me of this one: https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensive-and-precise-spec https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensi...
phkahler 5y ago
Software is a specification. Maybe you meant requirements, but people don't have requirements - they have problems that need to be solved. It is the programmers job to devise a solution to the problem and specify that in code.
- zucker42 5y ago
  In principle there's no reason to believe that computers can't be better than humans at understanding a problem that a group of people has and writing code to solve that problem. Sure, computers aren't good enough yet to do that, but I wonder if people 100 years from now might look back at articles like this in the same way we might look at article from 100 years ago claiming that machines will never beat humans at chess.
  - wvenable 5y ago
    At that point, we aren't just talking about computers that write code. You're talking about a general purpose AI that can effectively automate all human intellectual pursuits not just software development.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    writing does not equate to understanding. Look at gpt-3. It can write semi-coherently but it does not understand anything. However an automated programmer does not require understanding in order to be effective.
wes-k 5y ago
The point is you don’t have that level of specification. Software development is a creative and iterative process towards such a specification.

I tried and failed to find the xkcd that your comment is an obvious setup for. They talk about not needing to write code and instead writing a precise specification of the program's behavior, and the other person says "code, that's called code" (Ah, I see the sibling post linked to it, and it's not xkcd which explains why I didnt find it)

aranelsurion 5y ago

not to be dismissive, but it reminds me of this one: https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensive-and-precise-spec https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensi...

phkahler 5y ago

Software is a specification. Maybe you meant requirements, but people don't have requirements - they have problems that need to be solved. It is the programmers job to devise a solution to the problem and specify that in code.

zucker42 5y ago
In principle there's no reason to believe that computers can't be better than humans at understanding a problem that a group of people has and writing code to solve that problem. Sure, computers aren't good enough yet to do that, but I wonder if people 100 years from now might look back at articles like this in the same way we might look at article from 100 years ago claiming that machines will never beat humans at chess.
- wvenable 5y ago
  At that point, we aren't just talking about computers that write code. You're talking about a general purpose AI that can effectively automate all human intellectual pursuits not just software development.
- morpheos137 5y ago
  writing does not equate to understanding. Look at gpt-3. It can write semi-coherently but it does not understand anything. However an automated programmer does not require understanding in order to be effective.

wes-k 5y ago

The point is you don’t have that level of specification. Software development is a creative and iterative process towards such a specification.