I don't think I agree. Most people spend more time reading than writing code so programming languages should be optimized to be easier to read whereas tooling should be made to simplify writing code. New syntax or macros sounds like it would make the language harder to read. I agree that an advanced machine learning model for generating boilerplate code isn't the right approach but I also don't think we should extend languages for this. Tooling like code generators and linters are a good middle ground.

That sounds like an issue with how Java was designed. There are plenty of languages that solve Java's boilerplate problems without adding new syntax for records.

If you’ll review my original comment, I never said new syntax. I said better syntax. If your language design leads to a lot of boilerplate in idiomatic use then it needs to be better. Adding new syntax is just putting a bandaid on the problem.

FYI+IMO: Both Ruby and Scala have excellent ways to reduce these issues that occur at the language level, and make it easier to both read and write. I don't know either way if that means you should extend languages to handle it, but at least it's definitively possible to write the language that way from the beginning.

Otherwise yup, agree with you; ML for problematic boilerplate isn't the right approach, but other code generators and linters are really good and get you most of the way there.

it is a very similar argument to the one for powerful IDEs and underwhelming languages. to be fair, it’s not necessarily fruitless - e.g. with smalltalk. i fail to see the analoguous smalltalk-style empowerment of language using AI but perhaps something is there.

anyway. programming is automation; automation of programming is abstraction. using AI to write your code is just a bad abstraction - we are used to them