LLMs were created to use the same interface as humans (language/code).
Asking humans to change for the sake of LLMs is an utterly indefensible position. If humans want terse code, your LLM better cope or go home.
Asking humans to change for the sake of LLMs is an utterly indefensible position. If humans want terse code, your LLM better cope or go home.
I see no reason to believe LLMs can write working let alone good or high-quality code, nor that the adjustments to my workflow or expectations will be small. But sure, if such a thing happened, I would probably welcome it.
Meanwhile, there are people who write good and high-quality working code faster than me, and they all write as much as possible on one line with the most bare-bones of text editors, so I will continue to learn from them, rather than the people who say LLMs are helping them. Maybe you should reconsider.
Use the tool according to how it works, not according to how you think it should work.
To use your nailgun analogy as an example: Waddling in with your LLM and demanding the q community change is like walking into a clockmaker's workshop with your nailgun and demand they accommodate your chosen tool.
"But I can't fit my nailgun into these tiny spaces you're making, you should build larger clocks with plenty of space for my nailgun to get a good angle!"
No, we're not going to build larger clocks, but you're free to come back with a tiny automatic screwdriver instead. Alternatively you and your nailgun might feel more at home with the construction company across the street.
I could be wrong. Time will tell.