4 ms·
I'm stuck in my ways with vim/tmux/ghci etc, so I'm not using some AI IDE. I write stuff into ChatGPT and use the output, copying manually, or writing it myself
by yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
I'm stuck in my ways with vim/tmux/ghci etc, so I'm not using some AI IDE. I write stuff into ChatGPT and use the output, copying manually, or writing it myself with inspiration from what I get. I feed it a fair bit of context (like, say, a production module with a load of database queries, and the associated spec module) so that it copies the structure and patterns that I've established.
The quality of the Haskell code is about as good as I would have written myself, though I think it falls for primitive obsession more than I would. Still, I can add those abstractions myself after the fact.
Maybe one of the reasons I'm getting good results is because the LLM effectively has to argue with GHC, and GHC always wins here.
I've found that it's a superpower also for finding logic bugs that I've missed, and for writing SQL queries (which I was never that good at).
- meowface 1y agoTry Claude Code.
- yakshaving_jgt 1y agoWhy?
- tommyengstrom 1y agoI use similar style as you. neovim with ghci inside, plus hls, and ghciwatch. Claude code is nice because it is just a separate cli tool that doesn't force you to change editor etc. It can also research things for you, make plans that you can iterate before letting it loose, etc. Claude is also better than chatgpt at writing haskell in my experience.
- wahnfrieden 1y agoCodex CLI with gpt-5-thinking on "high" reasoning is also good to try as an alternative now
- black_knight 1y ago“GHC always wins” is a nice sentiment. Another similar thing happens when I have written QuickCheck tests and get the LLM to make the implementation conform. Quickcheck almost always wins that fight as well.