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
> But now that most code is written by LLMs

Is this true? It seems to be a massive assumption.

>>jacque+uK
By lines of code, almost by an order of magnitude.

Some of the code is janky garbage, but that’s what most code it. There’s no use pearl clutching.

Human engineering time is better spent at figuring out which problems to solve than typing code token by token.

Identifying what to work on, and why, is a great research skill to have and I’m glad we are getting to realistic technology to make that a baseline skill.

>>fooker+ZO
Well, you will somehow have to turn that 'janky garbage' into quality code, who will do that then?

>>jacque+wP
> who will do that then?

the next version of LLMs. write with GPT 5.2 now, improve the quality using 5.3 in a couple months; best of both worlds.