zlacker

>>simonw+(OP)
I wonder if the era of dynamic programming languages is over. Python/JS/Ruby/etc. were good tradeoffs when developer time mattered. But now that most code is written by LLMs, it's as "hard" for the LLM to write Python as it is to write Rust/Go (assuming enough training data on the language ofc; LLMs still can't write Gleam/Janet/CommonLisp/etc.).

Esp. with Go's quick compile time, I can see myself using it more and more even in my one-off scripts that would have used Python/Bash otherwise. Plus, I get a binary that I can port to other systems w/o problem.

Compiled is back?

>>behnam+sj
I'm not sure that LLMs are going to [completely] replace the desire for JIT, even with relatively fast compilers.

Frameworks might go the way of the dinosaur. If an LLM can manage a lot of complex code without human-serving abstractions, why even use something like React?

>>ravens+Tk
Frameworks aren't just human-serving abstractions - they're structural abstractions that allow for performant code, or even being able to achieve certain behaviours.

Sure, you could write a frontend without something like react, and create a backend without something like django, but the code generated by an LLM will become similarly convoluted and hard to maintain as if a human had written it.

LLM's are still _quite_ bad at writing maintainable code - even for themselves.