9 ms·
Yes exactly. Except now, the language has zero constraints. It can be a perfect distillation of your intentions. You might think, well code is perfect. But cod
by danielvaughn 1mo ago
Yes exactly. Except now, the language has zero constraints. It can be a perfect distillation of your intentions.
You might think, well code is perfect. But code is syntactically perfect, because it has to be. Because compilers can handle very little ambiguity. But that doesn't mean it's a perfect representation of your thoughts. A huge part of language design is for the compiler, not for the author.
And I'm not 100% sure of this, but I'm fairly confident that this approach would be far more token efficient than the way we currently use AI for programming.
- lofties 1mo agoI could do this before too. The way I work is that I just write some functions, fully annotated, in whatever language the project is in, with a comment on what I expect the code to do, and an empty return. Then get an LLM to fill in the functions. Helps me think about the problem, like your post mentioned, but I don't have to pay a tax on converting a prototyping language to a different language.
- globular-toast 1mo agoThis is how I liked to write software pre-LLM. Top down. Write the interface and tests first, implementation second. I think I got it from SICP. "Wish-driven programming" I think I heard once.
- danielvaughn 1mo agoThat’s exactly what this editor is for, except that your original written version is retained and source-mapped to the code that it generated. So as a project grows in size and complexity, you have a smaller foot print of human-written intent that acts as a reference. There’s no “prototyping language”, it’s just whatever you want to write.