IMHO instructing llms is programming - the analogy is not perfect but it is so close that it is quite useful. Programming is instructing a machine. We have now two types of programming - the traditional one that follows strict semantics and the new way of programming by prompting. The article still holds by showing the limitations of this new kind of programming.
I don't have strong opinions on when it's ok to use the work "programming" or not, but I think if you're using claude-code/pi/open-code/etc to produce something like a website or application, the "program" is the code the LLM outputs, not your prompt etc.
I don't think I'd want to call it "natural language programming" in the way Dijstra's implying here unless the prompt was the thing that was actively being executed/ran/whatever when someone loads your app or website.
I've seen some newer testing frameworks where you prompt for the outcome you want under a specific scenario. The first run is a LLM agent that figures out the steps but those steps are then used for recurring runs. If something fails, it goes back to the agent loop to see if it's an actual error.
This works well in e2e type tests where the test implementation might change but the customer experience hasn't.
So maybe there is a hybrid approach in our future.
loading story #50214081
Today I learned that the CEO of my company was a programmer all along.
So product managers have been programmers this whole time after all.
loading story #50208178
loading story #50209938