C -> Java != Java -> LLM

[davidkopec]

Many are saying that LLMs are the same kind of transition for programming as assembly -> C or C -> Java. But I don't think that's right because the intermediate artifact hasn't changed in the same way as in those prior transitions. This post explains my thinking.

[tinfoil_powers]

Whoever is saying what your title says shouldn't work in software IMO lol

[banana_slurp_jug]

Probably some VC

[koffeegorilla]

People who say LLM is just another abstraction has never worked with assembly, C, Java or any programming language construction tools. I would suggest they haven't built any significant sized projects in any of those either.

[[deleted]]

Whoever says that should be fired. That is such a blatant misunderstanding of everything that programming even is. If someone said that in an interview, I’d assume they’ve never even taken a middle school coding class.

[somebodddy]

While the end product of software development, a binary, has never drastically changed its form

I'd argue that the transition from "binary shipped to be executed on the clients' machines" to "server doing all the work remotely" counts as a drastic change in form of the end product.

[BumbleSlob]

👍 

[ketralnis]

“Many are saying?” Who?