@damian_b I agree that safety and shifting errors left is very important for AI. I think we are nearly able to design languages on the fly. A language needs a compiler. And these days a compiler is basically a tool that generates LLVM IR. AI knows how to write LLVM IR very well.
@nearX86@ThePrimeagen Maybe not the best term I'll rename. It measures Halstead Volume (total information content: operators × operands), not conceptual difficulty. Zig scores high because it's verbose, not because it's harder to reason about. It's actually highest of all! https://t.co/g2hWJhYMAR
@ThePrimeagen There is little objectivity around programming language debates, and AI will bring an explosion of new ones (I already made two). I took a shot at a more formal way to compare them with Language Explorer.
https://t.co/USmtdx5mya
I built the world's first programming language designed for LLMs and AI Agents.
Introducing Magpie.
Check it out yourself at: https://t.co/4bVeYmLw0I
Details below.
@trq212 You can just imagine the language you want and will it into a compiler
C++ null dereference warnings in clang? Ok. https://t.co/9MRZ0BUSln
Typescript frontend with LLVM backend? Ok. https://t.co/EuSzrmYQXq
@aksiksi@glcst I know people who actively work on extremely complex c++ codebases, that have a large number of runtime crashes, and still prefer it over rust. I really don't get that mindset.
@headinthebox Opus 4.7 is particularly bad at it (along with everything else). I tell it to estimate in terms of LOC instead of time and it helps, though it still sometimes does timeframes.
@bcherny Opus 4.7 is really bad, even after the post-mortem. I am going back to 4.6. Please do not remove 4.6 as an option, I will switch to Codex immediately.