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 was also thinking this some days ago. The scaffolding that static languages provide is a good fit for LLMs in general.

Interestingly, since we are talking about Go specifically, I never found that I was spending too much typing... types. Obviously more than with a Python script, but never at a level where I would consider it a problem. And now with newer Python projects using type annotations, the difference got smaller.

>>cobole+7r
> And now with newer Python projects using type annotations, the difference got smaller.

Just FWIW, you don't actually have to put type annotations in your own code in order to use annotated libraries.

>>zahlma+yr
Indeed, but nowadays it’s common to add the annotations to claw back a bit of more powerful code linting.