zlacker

>>Scramb+(OP)
Developed by Jordan Hubbard of NVIDIA (and FreeBSD).

My understanding/experience is that LLM performance in a language scales with how well the language is represented in the training data.

From that assumption, we might expect LLMs to actually do better with an existing language for which more training code is available, even if that language is more complex and seems like it should be “harder” to understand.

>>thorum+ci
I don’t think that assumption holds. For example, only recently have agents started getting Rust code right on the first try, but that hasn’t mattered in the past because the rust compiler and linters give such good feedback that it immediately fixes whatever goof it made.

This does fill up context a little faster, (1) not as much as debugging the problem would have in a dynamic language, and (2) better agentic frameworks are coming that “rewrite” context history for dynamic on the fly context compression.

>>adastr+Yr
> only recently have agents started getting Rust code right on the first try

This is such a silly thing to say. Either you set the bar so low that "hello world" qualifies or you expect LLMs to be able to reason about lifetimes, which they clearly cannot. But LLMs were never very good at full-program reasoning in any language.

I don't see this language fixing this, but it's not trying to—it just seems to be removing cruft

>>Growin+v92
I have had no issue with Claude writing code that uses lifetimes. It seems to be able to reason about them just fine.

I don't know what to say. May experience does not match yours.