Why can't we come at it from both sides?

Goal of library/language/framework designers: limit boilerplate and unnecessary code

Goal of tool/IDE designers: make it easy to not spend time on boilerplate and unnecessary code.

Both sides have built in limitations that will keep them from completely solving the problem. Terse, highly DRY code tends to also be highly abstracted and hard to read, with a lot of implicit behavior. On the other side, large amounts of generated code lead to tool lockin and cruft accumulation.

No product starts with an elaborate ci/cd pipeline and automated test suite. Many evolve into needing such tooling after having had an incident or two when a deployment broke the site…and the response invariably is that “we should have written a suite of really basic tests which goes to the home page and checks if the hero image is visible.”

If co-pilot’s autogenerated test cases can help prevent this head smacking, it will have proved that basic/boilerplate code was valuable.

The site checker included in the tooling is just a more mature version of the boilerplate unit test co-pilot gives us.

Btw, I have no skin in the game -never used co-pilot…just surprised that HN commenters can be so dismissive of wanting to get the basics right - like having some test coverage.