His point is moot. His argument considers that natural language would be the direct expression of the program. It's not. It's an abstraction layer, that is then converted in formal language. He could have foreseen that, given he takes explicitly the example of machine code and high-level languages. High-level languages do not replace machine code, they translate into it. Just like natural language programming translates into high-level language.
What do you commit? As long as you commit high level code to your repo, you are still programming in that language. You don't commit machine code because you know it will be always the same after compiling. And it also doesn't matter that you are using very high level tools and basically don't ever look at or even understand your programs any more.
loading story #50206644
True, in part.
Consider the role of a Business Analyst, in corporate environments. He is the person that talks to stakeholders and users and translates their "natural language" wishes into piles of semi-formal language (UML anyone?). Later on this will become fully formal language.
But I think Dijkstra point is more that we can't fully automate this process and let the machines do the formalization thingy. I used to believe that but I've seen LLMs doing things that really, really surprised me.
In the end I still hold hope in the old saying: "make a something idiot-proof and someone will just make a better idiot". We see LLMs doing magic if they're used by people that know what LLMs are doing. I never saw LLMs doing magic in the hands of idiots.