3 ms·
I think this is exactly the right conclusion. The main complaint people have about strict, thorough type systems is that they have boilerplate. Obviously boil
by smt88 3y ago
I think this is exactly the right conclusion.
The main complaint people have about strict, thorough type systems is that they have boilerplate.
Obviously boilerplate doesn't matter if a machine writes the code.
The type system also becomes helpful documentation of the intended behavior of the code that the LLM spits out.
- kridsdale3 3y agoAssembly has a lot of boilerplate, and every other language is an abstraction that gets a language-machine to write it for us. So we'll just move to a new standard where we write LLM prompts describing function behavior and it will output the Rust or whatever that we end up storing in our SCM.
- staunton 3y agoThere's a fundamental difference though. The LLM is itself inscrutable, while all of these programs used to be written and understood by humans. The language used for programming used to be specified and have unique (hopefully) coherent syntax and abstraction boundaries. Now it's "anything goes" and nobody seems to know how this stuff ends up getting used... Someone might accidentally find it works well and then we might all end up writing fairytales in iambic pentameter describing the use cases of software we want...