> "they have been abused by AGILE [...]"

That's ironic given that some of the Agile Manifesto signatories are some of the biggest proponents of constraint-based development. While the Principles behind the Agile Manifesto is not prescriptive, I am not certain you could, in practice, even satisfy many of the principles without constraint-based development.

> I also don't personally like engineering based on constraints. It feels like constructing a building based on where walls aren't allowed to go.

Engineering is all about constraints. That you then shift to talking about constructing a building is curious as it would be atypical for an engineer to work on constructing a building. The engineer's role in building constriction is typically only in defining the constraints. Construction crews, made up of an entirely different group of people, then construct the building within the constraints set. "Constructing a building based on where walls aren't allowed to go" is essentially how buildings are usually constructed. It is an interesting parallel as the LLM is somewhat like the construction crew, which is something software hasn't really had before in any kind of big way.

Engineer gets thrown around pretty loosely in the world of software, but elsewhere, especially in places where failure can cause serious harm, someone who constructs a building by applying judgment, experience, and craftsmanship as they go would be considered an artisan, craftsman, or something to that effect rather than an engineer. That seems closer to the world you like to live in. There is nothing wrong with being a craftsman, of course, but the economic fit is becoming less clear as the industry matures. Which is something that seems par for the course. The early days of building construction was also dominated by craftsmen but as it matured engineers became dominant.