Odd comparison ... code was always malleable, that's the nice thing about it, which I, as a slightly clumsy person, found the most attractive thing about coding.
You can't break anything you can't fix, and you can start out with something crappy that fulfills your needs at the moment and make it better later ... or not, if it continues to serve your purpose.
A stonemason has to buy new stones if they break something, a painter new paint, a woodworker new wood. If you build a crappy guitar you might have to buy new material, taking it apart and improving it might be tough.
With code, none of that has ever been a problem. You can start with something small, make mistakes, improve, all with the same material. You can even undo mistakes without a trace.
I'd say it's this pre-existing malleability of code that enabled LLM-based coding in the first place.
You can't break anything you can't fix, and you can start out with something crappy that fulfills your needs at the moment and make it better later ... or not, if it continues to serve your purpose.
A stonemason has to buy new stones if they break something, a painter new paint, a woodworker new wood. If you build a crappy guitar you might have to buy new material, taking it apart and improving it might be tough.
With code, none of that has ever been a problem. You can start with something small, make mistakes, improve, all with the same material. You can even undo mistakes without a trace.
I'd say it's this pre-existing malleability of code that enabled LLM-based coding in the first place.