If it's really that tedious and mechanical, there should be a code-level affordance for it (e.g. a macro, or something like https://github.com/lancewalton/treelog). Code is read more than it's written, and code that can be autocompleted isn't worth reading.

That's just a different type of automation. We can argue all day about determinism and repeatability, but at the end of tue day we are all in the business of automation. We are arguing about the specifics.

> That's just a different type of automation. We can argue all day about determinism and repeatability, but at the end of tue day we are all in the business of automation. We are arguing about the specifics.

Why choose to use something unreliable instead of using or writing something reliable? Isn't reliability the whole point of automation in the first place?

And I think it's fairly widely accepted that you shouldn't check compiled binaries or generated code into your source control, you should check in the configuration that generates it and work with that. (Of course this presupposes that your generator is reliable)