This is an interesting take, but I disagree. Syntax is a UI problem, but programming languages are more than syntax sugar for assembly. Features like Rust's bo

This is an interesting take, but I disagree. Syntax is a UI problem, but programming languages are more than syntax sugar for assembly. Features like Rust's borrow-checker, type systems, even small things like name resolution and async/await provide "semi-formal"* guarantees. And LLMs are no substitute for even semi-formal guarantees; people have spent lots of money and effort trying to integrate (non-NN, rule-based) algorithms and formal methods into LLMs, some even writing LLM programming languages, because they may be the key to fixing LLMs' accuracy problem. * Not formally defined or verified, but thoroughly defined and implemented via reliable algorithms. A true formal specification is completely unambiguous, and a true formally-proven implementation is completely accurate to its specification. A thorough language specification or reference (like https://tc39.es/ecma262/ https://tc39.es/ecma262/ or https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/ https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/) is almost unambiguous, and a well-tested compiler or interpreter is almost always accurate, especially compared to LLMs. Cases where true formal guarantees matter exist but are rare. There are many, many cases where LLMs are too inaccurate but well-tested algorithms are good enough.