There's an art to it. Most human attempts, and every LLM attempt I've ever seen, are awful, sometimes bordering on unreadable, but, as you say, there are a relatively small number of authors who do it well. That doesn't mean that most people should do it.
> I hired a junior "dev" who literally hadn't even completed an HTML course.
I mean, I'm a fairly senior dev, and have literally never completed, or indeed really heard of, a html course. Is that, eh, part of your average CS degree these days?
> Netscape has stipulated removal of the <marquee> element from the Internet Explorer during an HTML ERB meeting in February 1996, as a condition to removing the <blink> element from the Netscape
It's like nuclear disarmament treaties, but for annoying things.
> The closer you get to releasing software, the less useful LLMs become.
Which is _always_ the case with these things, honestly. Remember Ruby on Rails? Make a Twitter clone in half an hour by just writing some DSL! Of course, in reality Rails was _not_ a productivity revolution, and making _real_ software which had to be operated at scale and maintained, and work properly, in it wasn't much easier than it had been previously.
Nah, that came later as the canonical example, with Ruby on Rails (which also somewhat suffered from a "programmers are irrelevant now" meme). Rails would make todo apps and twitter clones too cheap to meter (pretty much all Rails tutorials involved making one or the other in like an hour, pretty much entirely in the DSL).
In practice, Rails, while quite nice, was not the productivity revolution that it was originally touted as. These things never are.
reply