From Procedural Code to Generative Logic: A Methodological Analysis of the Software Engineering Paradigm Shift

Abstract

This review paper examines the paradigmatic transition in software engineering from procedural, deterministic code execution to generative, probabilistic logic grounded in large language models and foundation systems. It traces the conceptual rupture---not merely technological evolution---between classical software development, defined by explicit control flow, state management, and compile-time verification, and the emergent generative paradigm, characterized by latent-space reasoning, statistical confidence calibration, and runtime interpretability over symbolic fidelity. The analysis identifies two interlocking shifts: first, the relocation of 'correctness' from syntactic and semantic validation to contextual coherence and alignment with human intent; second, the redefinition of engineering agency---from authoring stepwise instructions to curating prompts, constraints, and feedback loops that shape stochastic outputs. Core methodological tensions are explored across specification, verification, maintenance, and team coordination, revealing how traditional abstractions (e.g., modules, interfaces, contracts) lose determinacy when operating within non-deterministic inference pipelines. The paper further maps structural consequences for education, tooling, and quality assurance, arguing that generative logic does not replace procedural code but recursively embeds it within adaptive, self-modifying layers. Rather than framing this shift as a linear progression, the analysis treats it as a co-evolutionary bifurcation---one demanding new epistemic frameworks for reasoning about reliability, accountability, and design sovereignty in systems where behavior emerges from interaction rather than implementation.