zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. polski+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:40:06
Wouldn’t it make more sense to write the same functionality using a more performant, no-gc language? Aren’t competitors praised for their CLIs being faster for that reason?
replies(2): >>munifi+t1 >>kurtis+N2
2. munifi+t1[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:45:39
>>polski+(OP)
With AI tooling, we are in the era where rapid iteration on product matters more than optimal runtime performance. Given that, implementing your AI tooling in a language that maximizes engineer productivity makes sense, and I believe GC does that.
replies(2): >>logsr+9t >>timeon+xy
3. kurtis+N2[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:50:18
>>polski+(OP)
Codex is written in Rust
◧◩
4. logsr+9t[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-02 20:43:09
>>munifi+t1
JS/TS has a fundamental advantage, because there is more open source JS/TS than any other language, so LLMs training on JS/TS have more to work with. Combine that with having the largest developer community, which means you have more people using LLMs to write JS/TS than any other language, and people use it more because it works better, then the advantage compounds as you retrain on usage data.
◧◩
5. timeon+xy[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-02 21:08:11
>>munifi+t1
One would expect that "AI tooling" is there for rapid iteration and one can use it with performant languages. We already had "rapid iteration" with GC languages.
replies(1): >>munifi+nC
◧◩◪
6. munifi+nC[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-02 21:30:54
>>timeon+xy
If "AI tooling" makes developers more productive regardless of language, then it's still more productive to use a more productive language. If JS is more productive than C++, then "N% more productive JS" is still more productive than "N% more productive C++", for all positive N.
[go to top]