It is a new kind of literature, with the key characteristic being "dynamically sequenced reading".
Unlike literature, code is supposed to be read in an order most conducive to the reader's goals, rather than the author's goals.
Also, unlike literature, often new code is built upon old in an explicit and direct way. Although even in literature, one builds on top of old ideas.
I think Peter Norvig once commented on why Knuth's Literate programming didn't catch on. His guess was that, people usually have a specific purpose when they are looking into a piece of programming, and they want to read it in an order most suitable to them.
With LLMs, there could be dynamic code exploration helpers, I think. They could take our goals, and then introduce parts of the code that are relevant to the reader, with extended guidance...
Unlike literature, code is supposed to be read in an order most conducive to the reader's goals, rather than the author's goals.
Also, unlike literature, often new code is built upon old in an explicit and direct way. Although even in literature, one builds on top of old ideas.
I think Peter Norvig once commented on why Knuth's Literate programming didn't catch on. His guess was that, people usually have a specific purpose when they are looking into a piece of programming, and they want to read it in an order most suitable to them.
With LLMs, there could be dynamic code exploration helpers, I think. They could take our goals, and then introduce parts of the code that are relevant to the reader, with extended guidance...