zlacker

>>tymsca+(OP)
One thing im wondering with the LLM age we seem to be entering: is there value in picking up a language like this if theres not going to be a corpus of training data for an LLM to learn from? Id like to invest the time to learn Gleam, but I treat a language as a tool, or a means to an end. I feel like more and more I'm reaching for the tool to get the job done most easily, which are languages that LLMs seem to gel with.

>>marlie+f5
I feel that was more true 1-2 years ago. These days I find Claude Code write almost as good (or as bad depending on your perspective) Elixir code as JavaScript code and there must be less Elixir code in the training data.

>>victor+E8
I personally find it much more painful to generate valid Rust code that compiles and does what I want than e.g. valid python code that runs and does what I want.

>>jszymb+Yd
i think it's pretty clear that some of "the things you expect to make an LLM good at a language" (like strong typing) are not actually the case. other things like "don't indirect your code by jumping to something unexpected" might be more important.

>>dnauti+Cg
If anything llms would be poorer in codegen for static languages because they are more verbose - More tokens to generate and use limited context windows parsing code.

The advantage rather for llms in strongly typed languages is that compilers can catch errors early and give the model early automated feedback so you don’t have to.

With weakly typed (and typically interpreted) languages they will need to run the code which maybe quite slow to do so or not realistic.

Simply put agentic coding loops prefer stronger static analysis capabilities.