> Who would ever want to work that way? This just creates problems that don't need to exist.
That depends on what you want.
In the first place, the problem of compiling a natural language spec to code is obviously somewhere from undefined to Turing complete (depending on formulation). But if the compiler usually outputs some application with most of what the spec required, this compiler would be intensely useful for e.g. rapid prototyping.
Then the question is whether we can make an LLM based app that compiles natural language and gets you most of the way to the prototype you were building (or even better - asks clarifying questions to help refine your spec).
This isn’t that far fetched with current technology.
I can totally see the case for prototyping, it makes some sense. I just think that by the time you are specifying something so clearly that the results are correct you may well be practically programming in a super high level dynamic language.
That depends on what you want.
In the first place, the problem of compiling a natural language spec to code is obviously somewhere from undefined to Turing complete (depending on formulation). But if the compiler usually outputs some application with most of what the spec required, this compiler would be intensely useful for e.g. rapid prototyping.
Then the question is whether we can make an LLM based app that compiles natural language and gets you most of the way to the prototype you were building (or even better - asks clarifying questions to help refine your spec).
This isn’t that far fetched with current technology.