This is explicitly called out as only weakly supported in that blog post:
- You should use a popular language
- There's weak support for this statementIt makes sense, needing to train the model on things that aren't already in its weighs takes up valuable context. Until we have models that update their weights based on what they've seen in their recent sessions and learn like people, this will be a problem.
For now, though, between the results I'm seeing here, and the lack of need to look at code, I think this kills off any reason for me to use less popular languages.
I don't think there's really ever a downside to leaning in and making use of a language or system that works for you. Trying to tell people they should just use the popular thing is, imo, bad advice to turn hackers and experimenters into boring people.
AI changes the constraints here for now, since it can't permanently learn things. I'm waiting until that changes, but right now it's better to use what it knows out of the box if you want good results.
A better language doesn't buy me anything other than performance; the reason to stick an AI in here is to remove interactions with the code. I don't care what the AI chooses to use, as long as it gets results.
coincidentally, "good code" in popular lang is rarely directly attributed to only that part; and it's also about the underlying principles it tries to follow in the code... another example; is it typescript that's good, or are "types" inherently making things/feedback loops easier to reason about in llms? (only using ts here for all example because it's probably one of the most "trained on" pl)
I think there's an optimal ratio somewhere
These days I moved up the ladder of abstraction, so I don't really look; the main criteria I have is how the LLM gets things done.
If you give that to an LLM, it is then also able to iterate and develop faster.
The best that people have said about lisp is that evidence LLMs perform worse with it is weak.
You can’t tell that with a few uncontrolled runs