zlacker

I'm working with python and it does not work very well, LLMs usually generates at least an order of magnitude more code than what I would write. That code often uses outdated practices, does poor design choices and does not understand hints like writing code in a way that reduce cognitive load, even when we explain that it means, i.e. keep the number of classes and functions small.

It's the complete opposite of OP's main language GO, as he says:

> Go has just enough type safety, an extensive standard library, and a culture that prizes (often repetitive) idiom. LLMs kick ass generating it.

Python is an interpreted dynamically typed language and the static type checkers are not there yet (most popular 3rd parties libraries have no type hints for example). Also it allows for many different programming styles that the LLMs struggle to choose from.

1. Every extra line of code is much more risky. 2. It's much harder to verify the LLM's code.

On the other hand I think rust will be in a good place in regards to LLMs in the next few years thanks to the robustness of the language and the quality of its diagnostic messages. Those 2 attributes should compound very well.

>>HenriT+(OP)
I use Cursor with Python and it works great. Things you should try:

  * use type hints everywhere.
  * use dataclasses everywhere.
  * add the dataclass files to your prompt.
  * if the produced code is too complex, ask the LLM "Is this the simplest and cleanest way to solve this?"