I too believe that a even a super-compiler needs to be told what to do. But my vision was that in the future our specifications would look more like natural language, and less like source code. Kind of like taking programming to a higher level, to a point where we’d be more Developers than Programmers (as we know them today).

The human-computer “team” would still be very much working together.

Also you are taking the entire subject from a programmer level which is below the level of system programmer. While you may have the super compiler - who will write and maintain it? Yes you may not release many versions of your programs, but the system program writers (operating systems that is) do advance their systems continuously, and both hardware and software concepts are changing radically every few years? Who will program the next generation super-compiler? Millions of programmers?

The super compiler itself won’t do it. It willnot be able to do anything what it has not been told.

Peter Schulz

The computer will probably never be “smart”, but it can be of enough assistance that more and more of today’s users can do programming “like” tasks. Just think about how easy it is to configure new menus in XP as compared to doing the same thing with X-windows and TWM, twenty years ago. Another example is how “digital” photography is so much easier than film; you get instant feedback, so you can correct your shots immediately. That’s having a huge effect on industries like wedding photography because so many more people are able to get into the profession quickly.

Software as a tool for our minds can make us smarter and more effective in the same ways that a bulldozer helps a construction worker to move more earth, faster.

I see a future where we tell the computer, a kind of super-compiler, what we want to achieve. The input is our specification, and the output is a complete and tested system. All we have to do is specify, verify and then push the deploy button.

You’ve just described exactly what a compiler/assembler does. The source code written by programmers is nothing more than a minutely-detailed specification of what the output should be. Someday, the input that programmers currently write may be more declarative, but it will still require a lot of thought and expertise to produce, and the people who do it will be the programmers of tomorrow.

Couldn’t said it better. Thanks.

Computers fail at halting problems because they think they can solve it even if they cannot. Humans give up.

That’s why you cannot verify the accuracy of an algorithm via a compiler, and why compilers tend to stray away from algorithm analysis all together.

As someone else pointed out, they tried to replace programmers with CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering) tools. It was felt that the same productivity gains seen with CAD tools in the drafting world would be felt in programming. These are the same people who feel Donald Knuth’s “The Art of Programming” would be better titled “The Act of Programming.”

Trying to become more productive by optimizing the programming aspect of software creation is like trying to put a spoiler on a sports car with a flat tire. Technically, things will be “faster”, but at the end of the day, you’re still going nowhere just as fast. Often the problems with software creation are on the PM side. Software Development is inherently a people-centric process.

Programmers are inherently valuable not because of their ability to write lines of code, but for their ability to translate imperfect requirements and an imperfect spec in workable software. Many a times, the software is not workable — the project has failed, again most likely due to a people-centric problem.

There are too many people managing in software projects that haven’t read the mythical man-month or think its laws don’t apply to them in this day in age.

Bottom line, there is no silver bullet to ease the pain of programming.

I look forward to your next post, undoubtedly about how Indian Off-Shoring will decimate American programmers. (Hint: The Japanese also tried this in the 80s, and we’re still here.)

Here’s why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem