I think this is what binary programmers/hole punching said about programming languages

This'd be a valid analogy if all compiled / interpreted languages were like INTERCAL and eg. refused to compile / execute programs that were insufficiently polite, or if the runtime wouldn't print out strings that it "felt" were too silly.

Now there's an idea for an esoteric language.

It depends from which vantage point you look at it. The person directing the company, let's imagine it was Bill Gates instructing that the code should be bug free, but its very opinionated about what a bug is at Microsoft.

(I agree we shouldn't call it programming)

Uhm – isn't "coax my goddamn tooling into doing what I want" basically all we did pre-LLMs anyway?

How often did you IDE or editor refuse to do something it was generally capable of because it deemed the operation too frivolous in a context?

> I don't know what it is, but trying to coax my goddamn tooling into doing what I want is not why I got into this field.

I can understand that, but as long as the tooling is still faster than doing it manually, that's the world we live in. Slower ways to 'craft' software are a hobby, not a profession. (I'm glad I'm in it for building stuff, not for coding - I love the productivity gains).