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
For most code, this never happens in the real world.

The vast majority of code is garbage, and has been for several decades.

>>fooker+0S
This type of comments get downvoted the most on HN but it is absolute truth, most human-written code is “subpar” (trying to be nice and not say garbage). I have been working as a contractor for many years and code I’ve seen is just… hard to put it into words.

so much discussion here on HN which critiques “vibe codes” etc implies that human would have written it better which is vast vast majority is simply not the case

>>bdangu+7Z
I have worked on some of the most supposedly reliable codebases on earth (compilers) for several decades, and most of the code in compilers is pretty bad.

And most of the code the compiler is expected to compile, seen from the perspective of fixing bugs and issues with compilers, is absolutely terrible. And the day that can be rewritten or improved reliably with AI can't come fast enough.

>>fooker+D81
I honestly do not see how training AI on 'mountains of garbage' would have any other outcome than more garbage.

I've seen lots of different codebases from the inside, some good some bad. As a rule smaller + small team = better and bigger + more participants = worse.

>>jacque+aj1
That's why the major AI labs are really careful about the code they include in the training runs.

The days of indiscriminately scraping every scrap of code on the internet and pumping it all in are long gone, from what I can tell.

>>simonw+Aj1
Well, if as the OP points out it is 'all garbage' they don't have a whole lot of choice to discriminate.