I don't think I'd want to call it "natural language programming" in the way Dijstra's implying here unless the prompt was the thing that was actively being executed/ran/whatever when someone loads your app or website.
This works well in e2e type tests where the test implementation might change but the customer experience hasn't.
So maybe there is a hybrid approach in our future.
I think those are different from pure "natural langyage programming" though because there's normally code you've written that's calling out to the LLM, so it's within the context of written code.
I think this, and lots of other comments are so interesting. There are a lot of different increasingly complex ways LLM outputs and coding are being tied together by people, that I hadn't really considered.
The lack of intelligence in the loop is the foolishness the title refers to.
The entire point of the article was that human language isn't suitable for instructing computers, and you somehow make the leap to "humans instructing humans must be the same thing".
Reading comprehension must be a thing of the past at this point.
Reading comprehension must be a thing of the past at this point.