The End of Programming
Paul Dix argues that the act of writing and reviewing code manually is heading for extinction, driven by AI agents that can produce working software at massive scale. He points to Bun's 1.4 release, where one developer used a pre-release AI model to rewrite a million lines of Zig into Rust in 11 days, and shares his own experience building complex features for InfluxDB with minimal supervision. He predicts a future where humans review only end results, not code, and where software creation becomes a matter of direction and verification, not manual coding.
Software delivery at scale, that works, as proven on millions of working deployments.
- znnajdla
The article gives the example of Bun's successful Zig to Rust of why this is the end of programming. I think that rewrite is a perfect example of why it's NOT the end of software engineering. A non-programmer could not have prompted AI to do that rewrite, and in fact a non-programmer would not have even conceived of the idea of doing that rewrite in the first place. Somebody is still needed to 1. come up with the idea that a Zig-to-Rust rewrite is necessary to achieve certain technical goals 2. prompt the AI to do the rewrite, clearly describing the before-and-after architecture, the goal of the rewrite, and technically verifying the result.
Neither 1 nor 2 can be done by someone who doesn't even know what Bun, Zig, or Rust is, let alone deeply understand how those work. In fact, even I as a programmer with decades of experience in PHP/Python/JS but without specific experience in Zig and Rust probably couldn't do a proper rewrite for a project the size of Bun.
- cafebabbe
I don't know if this is the end of programming, but i can clearly observe the gradual end of expertise in my company - people slowly forgetting architecture, principles, and how stuff works in general, in favor of code delivery speed.
And without expertise you end up asking stupid things to a token producer machine, however godlike it can be.
It's hard not to extrapolate...
- simonw
This is a strong article with a distracting headline. Challenge for commenters: can you discuss the content without getting caught up in the headline?
My favorite paragraph:
> The fact that AI wrote 1M LOC and then refined it over the course of the next couple of months to produce a reliable piece of software that is currently running on millions of developer machines is absolutely mind blowing. And you can say, “well it’s not that impressive because they had an oracle to compare against, so it was simple to go from one language to another”, but I think that’s selling this entire thing short. If you can build a verification system and give proper direction, AI can produce a highly complex, highly sophisticated piece of software and it can continue to refine it until it just works.
For me, this captures what's special about the Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol class of models. If you can reduce a problem to a clearly verifiable end state, provide the necessary context, and equip a model with the necessary tools it can usually get to a good solution.
Reducing problems to that state and designing that environment remains a skill, and one that I expect we will be paid handsomely for.
- rico735
Ultimately the Bun rewrite takes on trust that there was no human review/intervention, even though I assume Anthropic have a lot of very good engineers and it needed to work perfectly for it to be good PR.
I'd be very surprised if there was not a lot more human work than they are making out. They're certainly not a trustworthy source.
If not, do we really think no one at Bun now has a mental model of how their own software works, and only Claude can fix it moving forward?
- Gareth321
I agree with the thesis. Development is moving towards intent and alignment and clear understanding of needs. These have always been important but in a future where code is almost free, customers will be more demanding about having their needs met, fast.
Our SaaS company is making plans to move towards bespoke development, which until now has been far too costly for most customers to accept. It also violates the multi-tenant cost/business model, so we're scrambling to figure out what hosting and ops and support agreements look like in a bespoke future.
The implications here go well beyond development. I'm seeing pretty massive changes happening in finance, consulting, HR, accounting, law, design, architecture, health, and everything else. When the value of intelligence is effectively zero, how are humans supposed to market and sell themselves in the job market? Some white collar people might try to move into physical jobs for job security, but it will only take a fraction of white collar workers to migrate to crater wages there too.
We're not ready for this. Socially, economically, and politically. Look at how we treated middle Americans who lost their manufacturing jobs when they were offshored to China. Hillary Clinton famously laughed at them and told them to "learn to code." We'll watch jobs and industries disappear while clinging to our own and praying that it's not us today.
UBI is going to be inevitable soon, but it's also woefully insufficient. Giving a developer who […]
- solatic
> Broader, cheaper access to frontier intelligence at incredible speeds is coming.
OP's entire argument rests on this presumption, and while it certainly sounds like the industry is headed in this direction, it's definitely way too early to equate the success of building proofs of concept with success at maintaining mission-critical production systems across industry verticals, as OP attempts to:
> The prototype is working software. And the improvement and testing of that prototype is further enabled by more improvement loops with the AI. It gets better with more testing and verification, not through human code review, but through usage and testing.
Who drives usage and testing today? Who takes user feedback from the "usage and testing" and translate it into something that The Machine can use for improvements? Humans do. There is no agentic harness for managing at the level of the product itself, and I'm not convinced that there ever will be, because it's a fundamentally political concern. And not the low-stakes intra-team kind like tabs vs. spaces - the high-stakes, do-we-close-the-deal-or-not kind. Even if agents hypothetically could handle that level of stakes - they simply lack the context to do so, and will continue to lack the context to do so, at least until we get AGI in a humanoid robotic form factor.
Software engineering isn't dead. As a separate field with a dedicated job title, it's arguably dying in a world where it becomes a table-stakes skillset for Product rol […]
- mpweiher
From TFA: "What I mean by this is that I think the act of writing code manually and having other humans review it to create useful, working software is headed for extinction."
“Since FORTRAN should virtually eliminate coding and debugging…” -- FORTRAN report, 1954 [1]
And the FORTRAN report was both right and wrong. What was meant by "coding" back then, carefully crafting machine instructions from higher level specifications, was almost entirely eliminated. It was replaced by something else, which we now call coding.
[1] http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/BackusE...
- broodbucket
Really didn't see programming going the way of blacksmithing in my lifetime, let alone early in my lifetime.