Maybe he's just thinking about how far down that path we'd be by now, if they'd stuck with languages that can write a bit of their own coded when needed. Maybe it would make automation a whole lot... smarter.
But I thought that was the programmer's job. To sit there and add to the code, and test it and add more to it until finally it could allow for every possible contingency. (within reason as it pertains to what it was written for) Of course someone could come along and break it but I'm imagining it only being used for what it was intended for. So the programmer would decide what was a good use of the program, and if it needed some more code added in, in a later version, he'd do it. And not try to make the program do it itself. Almost sounds like a recipe for disaster. Cause what if a program running a robot arm, decided it needed to swing 6 inches wider and just added that tiny little bit of code in. So then it does it, and it knocks somebody's teeth out. Or something like that, I'm sure you can imagine.
But I thought that was the programmer's job. To sit there and add to the code, and test it and add more to it until finally it could allow for every possible contingency. (within reason as it pertains to what it was written for) Of course someone could come along and break it but I'm imagining it only being used for what it was intended for. So the programmer would decide what was a good use of the program, and if it needed some more code added in, in a later version, he'd do it. And not try to make the program do it itself. Almost sounds like a recipe for disaster. Cause what if a program running a robot arm, decided it needed to swing 6 inches wider and just added that tiny little bit of code in. So then it does it, and it knocks somebody's teeth out. Or something like that, I'm sure you can imagine.