4 ms·
IMO all of these higher level languages that were designed for humans have a very short lifespan at this point. The only thing propping them up seems to be loy
by mountainriver 4mo ago
IMO all of these higher level languages that were designed for humans have a very short lifespan at this point.
The only thing propping them up seems to be loyalty for the most part.
- dnautics 4mo agotheres nothing in common between humans and llms or llm training sets!
- FeteCommuniste 4mo agoSo the future of programming is asking an LLM to spit out the appropriate assembly?
- tclancy 4mo agoNo, install my punch-card.md skill to get real performance.
- mountainriver 4mo agoPretty close to it, at least Rust for now. I can't tell the difference between asking it to output Rust vs anything else at this point
- DrewADesign 4mo agoYeah we’ll see how that goes when the VC subsidies run dry and everybody gets corralled into token-based pricing.
- jimbokun 4mo agoWhat will you use as training data for these new languages? LLMs are good at current programming languages because they had lots of data to train on.
- bullfightonmars 4mo agoI use rails because it makes thousands of good choices that I never have to make. If build apps the rails way I don't have to deal with a mountain of tech debt (in the form bad or ever changing choices).
- mountainriver 4mo agoYour app will be demonstrably slower, less efficient, and less reliable than an app written in Rust
- goosejuice 4mo agoWhat lower level lang would offer the benefits the beam/otp provide? I suspect you're generalizing a bit too much and haven't thought this through :)
- DrewADesign 4mo agoI think most people that dismiss BEAM right off the bat either don’t understand the built-in beam process/supervisor/etc. model with its inherent fault tolerance, etc, or assume its not useful because it doesn’t address their use cases. That or it’s a evangelist from the church of AI speaking based on faith rather than reason. Or some combination of the two.