Yes. I tried the prolog style requirements last night too and it wasn't great either. Some things are easier to say in "rules" and some things are easier to say in "steps". Trying to get all the way to "rules" ends up sounding like Yoda talk in places. Where with "steps" you feel the need for a GOTO, with "all rules" you feel the need for the infamous COMEFROM keyword in places.
So, yeah, I think what you say is the only logical conclusion. Waterfall development doesn't work well for humans, and it's probably not going to work for AI either. In fact, spending a ton of time formalizing a huge requirements doc is going to be even more of an antipattern with AI. When you can just have a conversation, hammer out details, identify nuances, plan for the future, all while seeing the feature in real time, that's going to be a million times more productive. The requirements doc can come with a full demo and a green button to launch it into production immediately after (or during) the review meeting.
So yeah, we'll probably never have "English as code", but rather an iterative process that leads to both English and code descriptions of the feature.
As far as DSLs, I think they still fit. If you see a pattern that makes sense to encode in a DSL, the LLM will happily do that, and doing so could help the AI optimize its limited context and make the invariants of the domain much more explicit.
Fun times.
