I'm a bit scared for what this means as I don't think being able to faster write boilerplate is something worthwhile. The example ed_elliott_asc made is one of those examples where instead of fixing things so you don't have to repeat yourself, copilot makes it easy to just live with the boilerplate instead.
But do you believe people being slower at writing boilerplate is undesirable?
I mean, it's sort of a false dichotomy -- it's omitting a "default speed" for writing boilerplate that is neither enhanced nor impeded.
the potential issue with an enhanced speed for writing boilerplate is that it means that there'll just be more and more boilerplate to maintain over time, and it's not clear what that cost over time will be.
How much more effort will be expended to replace things in multiple places? It exacerbates existing issues of "these two things look almost the same, but someone manually modified one copy...should that change be propagated?"
Meaning, it's essentially an ad-hoc code generator. Code generation can be a very useful technique (see protobufs), but without the ability to re-generate from a source?
Perhaps a possible enhancement might be for copilot to keep track of all blurbs it generated and propose refactoring/modifying all copies?
I'm not sure. I think that understanding is omitting a "default amount" of boilerplate that will have to be written regardless of one's individual preference that is really a function of the language / framework of choice, the existing codebase and the problem at hand.
Removing that boilerplate would be ideal but is not always possible given limited resources, time constraints and the usual inability to make sweeping changes to the codebase
So we settle for the second best solution which is to automate away that tedious process (or short of that provide developers with tools to get it out of the way faster) so we can all focus on "real work"
An impedance would be something to adjust the status quo in a negative direction e.g., a hardware failure