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 think you're missing the reason LLMs work: It's cause they can continue predictable structures, like a human.

The surmise that compiled languages fit that just doesn't follow. The same way LLMs have trouble finishing HTML because of the open/close are too far apart.

The language that an LLM would succeed with is one where:

1. Context is not far apart

2. The training corpus is wide

3. Keywords, variables, etc are differentiated in the training.

4. REPL like interactivity allows for a feedback loop.

So, I think it's premature to think just because the compiled languages are less used because of human inabilities, doesn't mean the LLM will do any better.