3 ms·
They keep calling it a language (Kotlin derivative), but then the CTO refers to it as "basically English", with maybe "some semantics". Are we just talking abo
by kylecazar 1y ago
They keep calling it a language (Kotlin derivative), but then the CTO refers to it as "basically English", with maybe "some semantics".
Are we just talking about prompting with some enforced structure, or is it a programming language?
- konart 1y agoI remember working on a project (something like a java IDE) with jruby inside and a natural-langauge-like DSL for an end user.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- w4 1y agoIsn't this more or less what every procedural programming language is? It's especially obvious with examples like Apple's Objective-C APIs ([object doSomethingAndReturnATypeWith:anotherObject]), Cobol (a IS GREATER THAN b), or SQL (SELECT field FROM table WHERE condition), but even assembly is a mnemonic English-ish abstraction for binary. I'm intrigued by the idea, but my major concern would be that moving up to a new level of abstraction would even further obscure the program's logic and would make debugging especially difficult. There's no avoiding the fact that the code will need to be translated to procedural logic for the CPU to execute at some point. But that is not necessarily fatal to the project, and I am sure that assembly programmers felt the same way about Fortran and C, and Fortran and C programmers felt the same way about Java and Python, and so on.