zlacker

[return to "Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs"]
1. deepsq+br[view] [source] 2026-01-20 01:01:48
>>Scramb+(OP)
At this point, I am starting to feel like we don’t need new languages, but new ways to create specifications.

I have a hypothesis that an LLM can act as a pseudocode to code translator, where the pseudocode can tolerate a mixture of code-like and natural language specification. The benefit being that it formalizes the human as the specifier (which must be done anyway) and the llm as the code writer. This also might enable lower resource “non-frontier” models to be more useful. Additionally, it allows tolerance to syntax mistakes or in the worst case, natural language if needed.

In other words, I think llms don’t need new languages, we do.

◧◩
2. dpweb+2M2[view] [source] 2026-01-20 18:15:47
>>deepsq+br
I disagree I think we always need new languages. Every language over time becomes more and more unnecessarily complex.

It's just part of the software lifecycle. People think their job is to "write code" and that means everything becomes more and more features, more abstractions, more complex, more "five different ways to do one thing".

Many many examples, C++, Java esp circa 2000-2010 and on and on and on. There's no hope for older languages. We need simpler languages.

[go to top]