2 ms·
That's not a take I was expecting to find here. I've found most LLMs absolutely dreadful when it comes to Gleam, to the point that I most often disable even inl
by jdiff 2mo ago
That's not a take I was expecting to find here. I've found most LLMs absolutely dreadful when it comes to Gleam, to the point that I most often disable even inline autocomplete when working in Gleam codebases.
Too often I find them getting pulled into larger ruts in the training data and trying to insert language features that don't exist (ifs, loops, and syntactic constructs) from more popular languages like TypeScript and Rust. Do you not experience other languages getting partially substituted in when you have LLMs write Gleam?
- MichaelNolan 2mo agoI suspect it depends a lot on the llm/harness being used. But when I use Opus/cc or sol/codex, at the end of the turn everything compiles, passes tests, and passes lint. I never even look at code that can't compile. Maybe the LLM is generating weird stuff in-between, but I don't see it. What you're describing feels like my experience back in 2024/25. Back then I was using a llm auto complete or the chat interface, and I would get weird stuff all the time. (not just gleam but any language).
- brabel 2mo agoYou’re talking about autocomplete! That’s always a poor model doing it because it has to be fast enough. I never use that anymore in any language, it’s only occasionally helpful. I suspect everyone is talking about agent harnesses here , not autocomplete. With a harness, the agent not only can be more powerful (and slow) it can go into “thinking” mode and once it comes back with some code , it’s almost always quite good. I think this is true in Gleam and in many other languages, no matter how minor, as long as it has good docs and good error messages so the AI will fix dumb mistakes before you get to see it.