I've had the same thought. On the bright side, this is not a new phenomenon. The number of "things" that a new programming language needs to provide that are o

I've had the same thought. On the bright side, this is not a new phenomenon. The number of "things" that a new programming language needs to provide that are outside of the language itself has been growing for a long time now. A new language already isn't going to find purchase if it doesn't have a package manager, a build system, a hosted package repository, a standardized pretty printer, a test runner, a documentation generator, a StackOverflow presence, an active community on both synchronous and asynchronous communication platforms, and IDE support. Needing a trained LLM "just" raises the bar for IDE support. However, unlike all of the other "things", this is something that can't really leverage prior art or standardized protocols. Of course, even to this day there are some people who program without IDEs at all. In order to bootstrap their own LLM training data, new languages will need to fiercely compete for this ever-shrinking segment.