undefined | Better HN

0 pointscrazygringo3mo ago0 comments

That's a really, really interesting point.

It makes me imagine a programming language designed for LLMs but not humans, designed for rigorous specification of every function, variable, type, etc., valid inputs and outputs, tightly coupled to unit tests, mandatory explicit handling of every exception, etc.

Maybe it'll look like a lot of boilerplate but make it easy to read as opposed to easy to write.

The idea of a language that is extremely high-effort to write, but massively assists in guaranteeing correctness, could be ideal for LLM's.

0 comments

ModernMech3mo ago

I'm writing one of these, I'll post it on HN next year. The key to a language for LLMs is: make sure all the context is local, and explicit. If you have functions, use parameters for arguments instead of positions. If you have types, spell them out right there. Also, don't use too many tokens, so keywords are out. And that's just a start.

I think the ideal language for LLMs will look more like APL than C.

0xbadcafebee3mo ago

So, Eiffel or Ada and TLA+

chamomeal3mo ago

Feel like you can also achieve pretty correct programs using good tests. Like really good tests.

I’m thinking of generative tests (quickcheck style), fuzzing, erroring on invariants, contract testing (see the test.contract clojure library for a very cool contract test setup!).

Really really good test suites can do stuff that even logically verified programs can’t do. They’re just a pain in the ass to write. Seems like a good use of LLMs, and you can keep using the same languages!

cgh3mo ago

That’s what the article is about.

crazygringoOP3mo ago

No it's not. The article proposes the idea of a language designed for vibe-coding, and suggests several variants designed for specific purposes. But none of the variants are for the purpose I suggested, which is about maximizing correctness. That's the point I was making.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse