This doesn't make sense, because we have systematized the construction of executable programs with extremely high reliability and predictability: we call it "Copy File"

It's the design that is the hard part, and the process of coding is the process of iterating on the design. Even turning the design into an executable is extremely reliable, either running via a VM or scripting engine, or compiling. Those are all very repeatable and reliable.

There are other disciplines that focus on creating and improving designs (like writing, painting, architecture, 3D modeling), but it's not like they're reliable or predictable either, unless you're designing very similar things over and over again. That's true of coding as well, but you don't really end up doing that, because once you've done it 3 times you should make a library and then never do that part again, just the unique bits.

In short, yeah, coding is its own thing, and I doubt it'll ever be predictable unless you're wasting a lot of time and effort doing very similar things over and over.

But yeah the idea anyone has magically solved accurately predicting the future is completely bonkers.

I used to lead a software department in a small company that sold software to, mainly, the construction industry, so the go to comparison was building houses, which according to my boss, were always on time and on budget, unlike software.

The funniest thing about it was that our software was used by huge projects: Hinkley Points C, HS2, etc ... which obviously have an great track record of being on time and on budget ಠ_ಠ

Everything that's below the ground is hard to predict, because you seldom know exactly what's in the ground.

Once your construction has progressed above ground, it's somewhat more predictable.

(But delays are still possible.)