The pessimist in my brain keeps waiting for someone to prove mathematically that they’re impossible. NP complete might be fine for many uses, since the branching factor for code for example is pretty low. But for some people NP complete is a magical force field that shuts off all rational thought.
That agrees with my intuition for the most part, although it might carve out some space for hope, in the sense that a paper about proof of A that doesn't mention !A means someone spent time in there and didn't find a bigger problem. The more times someone carves out a small amount of negative space in a problem domain, the higher the odds are that there's an asymptote that is nonzero.
What I'm more worried about is that we will prove that 'interesting text merges' are not all commutative. Though one trick we keep doing in spaces where things are proven impossible is that we cheat by creating tools that disallow or discourage the intractable scenarios. That could, for instance, lead to a generation of programming languages with a strange file structure that makes most workflows commutative.
That may sound strange or terrible to some people, but it's been my opinion for a number of years now that most of our coding conventions boil down to issues of avoiding merge conflicts, so a language that enforced a stronger form of conflict avoidance would be an 'opinionated' language but within the realm of the sorts of things we already put up with. Maybe no stranger than pure functional or Actor based languages, for instance.
