4 ms·
It might be less ambitious and more practical to target bytecode. But you effectively lose the human review component.
by flir 19d ago
It might be less ambitious and more practical to target bytecode.
But you effectively lose the human review component.
- _1 19d agoThere's more python and typescript in the training data than bytecode.
- flir 19d agoI was thinking about that. I reckon generating massive amounts of synthetic training data for that goal should be possible - you've already got the Python, after all. It's also possible for machine code, but you'd have to target more platforms. But ultimately, I think human readability outweighs any theoretical advantage you get from removing a step in the compilation process.
- redox99 18d agoTargeting byte code or asm instead of high level would be silly for everyday tasks. You blow up the number of tokens, reduce your effective context, and there's just more places for it to make a mistake, which most likely won't be caught by the assembler (unlike compilers).