zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. jwr+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-01-12 09:07:11
I program mostly in Clojure and I expected it to be near the top, as it tends to be very concise and expressive (qualities I really admire). I am getting excellent results from Claude Code (Opus 4.5), and I think this might be one of the reasons. I'm using Claude with a large code base and the token-efficiency of Clojure might help with fitting more into the context window.
replies(1): >>kalisz+P11
2. kalisz+P11[view] [source] 2026-01-12 15:38:58
>>jwr+(OP)
I also program a lot in Clojure/Script. Do you also consider thinking token and the number of iterations in the token efficiency?
replies(1): >>jwr+1O1
◧◩
3. jwr+1O1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-12 19:14:35
>>kalisz+P11
I don't think thinking tokens are affected, as LLMs "think" mostly in plain language, with occasional code snippets.
replies(1): >>kalisz+6S2
◧◩◪
4. kalisz+6S2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-13 03:13:32
>>jwr+1O1
I would assume for certain problems LLMs have a solution readily available for JavaScript/ TypeScript or similarly popular languages but not for Clojure/Script. Therefore my thinking was that the process of getting to a workable solution would be longer and more expensive in terms of tokens. I however don't have any relevant data on this so I may just be wrong.
[go to top]