3 ms·

Maybe to get a real breakthrough we have to make programming languages / tools better suited for LLM strengths not fuss so much about making it write code we li

by jack_pp 7mo ago

Maybe to get a real breakthrough we have to make programming languages / tools better suited for LLM strengths not fuss so much about making it write code we like. What we need is correct code not nice looking code.

kuerbel 7mo ago
Yes yes Let it write a black box no human understands. Give the means of production away.
eru 7mo ago
Lean might be a step in that direction.
kube-system 7mo ago
If you can’t validate the code, you can’t tell if it’s correct.
- 3836293648 7mo ago
  No? That's literally the thing they suggested to move away from. That is just an issue when using tools designed for us. Make them write in formal verification languages and we only have to understand the types. To be clear, I don't think this is a good idea, at least not yet, but we do not have to always understand the code.
bloppe 7mo ago
> programming languages / tools better suited for LLM strengths The bitter lesson is that the best languages / tools are the ones for which the most quality training data exists, and that's pretty much necessarily the same languages / tools most commonly used by humans. > Correct code not nice looking code "Nice looking" is subjective, but simple, clear, readable code is just as important as ever for projects to be long-term successful. Arguably even more so. The aphorism about code being read much more often than it's written applies to LLMs "reading" code as well. They can go over the complexity cliff very fast. Just look at OpenClaw.
- anthonyrstevens 7mo ago
  >> simple, clear, readable code is just as important as ever for projects to be long-term successful Is it though? I'm a long-time code purist, but I am beginning to wonder about the assumptions underlying our vocation.
  - bloppe 7mo ago
    I guess it's hard to tell until we see more long-term AI-generated project, but many of the ones we have so far (OpenClaw and OpenCode for instance) are well-known for their stability issues, and it seems "even more AI" is not about to fix that.

by jack_pp 7mo ago

kuerbel 7mo ago

Yes yes Let it write a black box no human understands. Give the means of production away.

eru 7mo ago

Lean might be a step in that direction.

kube-system 7mo ago

If you can’t validate the code, you can’t tell if it’s correct.

3836293648 7mo ago
No? That's literally the thing they suggested to move away from. That is just an issue when using tools designed for us. Make them write in formal verification languages and we only have to understand the types. To be clear, I don't think this is a good idea, at least not yet, but we do not have to always understand the code.

bloppe 7mo ago

> programming languages / tools better suited for LLM strengths The bitter lesson is that the best languages / tools are the ones for which the most quality training data exists, and that's pretty much necessarily the same languages / tools most commonly used by humans. > Correct code not nice looking code "Nice looking" is subjective, but simple, clear, readable code is just as important as ever for projects to be long-term successful. Arguably even more so. The aphorism about code being read much more often than it's written applies to LLMs "reading" code as well. They can go over the complexity cliff very fast. Just look at OpenClaw.

anthonyrstevens 7mo ago
>> simple, clear, readable code is just as important as ever for projects to be long-term successful Is it though? I'm a long-time code purist, but I am beginning to wonder about the assumptions underlying our vocation.
- bloppe 7mo ago
  I guess it's hard to tell until we see more long-term AI-generated project, but many of the ones we have so far (OpenClaw and OpenCode for instance) are well-known for their stability issues, and it seems "even more AI" is not about to fix that.