> it’s only when you fully understand the problem you can generalize
Peter Naur explained this decades ago
>Peter Naur argues that programming is fundamentally a human activity of building a mental "theory" - a deep conceptual insight into how a system's parts match the real-world problem it solves. He rejects the prevailing view that programming is merely the mechanical production of source code, specifications, and documentation. Instead, Naur posits that the true product of programming is the shared mental model held in the minds of the developers who built it.
As a human you're the one with the problem you want code to solve, so it's worth having an understanding the problem. Otherwise you risk an X/Y situation, where the LLM ends up solving a problem that may not actually satisfy what you need.
I think what LLMs allow you to do is better abstract away everything that's _not_ essential to the problem you care about, in the same way that libraries or any higher-level programming language does. Ultimately there's still a "core" of the problem that needs to be expressed formally though. When you see people "vibe coding" by prompting the LLM to add constraints at a time until they reach their desired end-goal, this is ultimately "programming" in a sloppy, non-formal way. Better to get the LLM to write everything else _surrounding_ the problem, so you can write and understand the core yourself.