TL;DR
A blog post argues that large language models (LLMs) differ from past language-driven leaps because they don't replace source code as the central intermediate artifact. Until LLMs achieve full autonomy, teams will continue to produce, review and maintain source code in existing languages, even if LLMs speed up many tasks.
What happened
A commentary published December 27, 2025, draws a distinction between historical shifts in programming languages and the current rise of LLMs for software development. Prior transitions — for example from assembly to C to Java — altered the intermediate output of development: the source code itself, which then drove new ecosystems, tooling, and collaboration patterns. The piece contends LLMs do not deliver that same kind of transformation because they still operate within existing programming languages. Rather than producing binaries directly, LLMs generate prompts that are turned into source code, which is then edited by humans or by further prompting and ultimately compiled or run. The author argues that, until LLMs become largely autonomous without human oversight, source code will remain the intermediate product and existing practices around architecture, storage, review and refactoring will persist, albeit accelerated. The writer also suggests dynamic interpreted languages could gain traction for live prompt-driven edits, shortening the edit-run cycle.
Why it matters
- Tooling and language ecosystems may not be displaced: existing compilers, IDEs and review systems remain relevant because source code stays central.
- Collaboration practices — code review, refactoring, architecture discussions — are likely to continue rather than be replaced by prompt-based workflows.
- Organizations will need to integrate LLM assistance into current processes rather than assume a wholesale change to how software is produced.
- If dynamic interpreted languages become more common for live edits, development iteration speed could increase significantly.
Key facts
- Historically, changes in programming languages altered the intermediate product: source code shifted when teams moved from assembly to C to Java.
- The final artifact of software development (the binary) has not fundamentally changed in form, even as distribution methods evolved.
- According to the author, LLMs today generate source code in existing languages rather than producing binaries directly.
- The development flow remains prompt -> source code -> human edits or additional prompts -> binary, not prompt -> binary.
- Because source code remains the intermediate product, many current workflows (architecture, storage, review, refactoring) are expected to persist.
- LLMs are described as accelerating and assisting development tasks, not eliminating the need for human guidance and oversight.
- The author speculates that dynamic interpreted languages could become more attractive for workflows that allow live changes to running programs.
What to watch next
- Whether LLM systems become fully autonomous and require minimal human oversight — not confirmed in the source.
- Adoption of dynamic interpreted languages or tooling that enables prompt-driven live edits to running programs — not confirmed in the source.
- How existing code review and collaboration practices evolve as teams increasingly use LLM assistance.
Quick glossary
- Intermediate product: An item produced during development that is not the final deliverable; in software, this typically refers to source code.
- Large language model (LLM): A machine learning model trained on large text datasets that can generate human-like text and code in response to prompts.
- Dynamic interpreted language: A programming language that is executed by an interpreter at runtime and often supports rapid, interactive development cycles.
- Binary: The compiled or executable form of software that runs on hardware, typically produced from source code through compilation or build processes.
- Prompt: Input text provided to an LLM that guides its generation of code, text, or other outputs.
Reader FAQ
Do LLMs replace programming languages?
No; the source argues that LLMs generate code in existing languages and do not replace the intermediate role of source code.
Will source code cease to be the central artifact?
The author contends source code will remain the intermediate product until LLMs are fully autonomous, so it will continue to be central.
Will development move directly from prompts to binaries?
According to the piece, development still follows prompt -> source code -> edits -> binary, not prompt -> binary.
Will dynamic interpreted languages become dominant?
The author suggests they may gain traction for live prompt-driven edits, but broader adoption is not confirmed in the source.
C -> Java != Java -> LLM December 27, 2025 by DK Many have compared the advancements in LLMs for software development to the improvements in abstraction that came with better programming…
Sources
- C –> Java != Java –> LLM
- why c is preferred instead of java in most of the real time …
- My friend says that the Java programming language is …
- REMODEL-LLM: Transforming C code to Java using LLMs
Related posts
- One-page printable yearly calendar that auto-fits any paper size
- Viral Potential Predictor — free, local NLP title analyzer (Show HN)
- Study finds fathers’ diet and exercise reflected in sperm RNA, in mice