undefined

points

[-]

Yes, it's nice to have a strict compiler, so the agent has to keep fixing its bugs until it actually compiles. Rust and TypeScript are great for this.

by apitman4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

A big downside with rust is the compile times. Being in a tight AI loop just wasn't part of the design of any existing programming languages.

As languages designed for (and probably written by) AI come out over the next decade, it will be really interesting to see what dragon tradeoffs they make.

by veber-alex4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

"cargo check" is fast and it's enough for the AI to know the code is correct.

I would argue that because Rust is so strict having the agent compile and run tests on every iterations is actually less needed then in other languages.

I program mostly in python but I keep my projects strictly typed with basedpyright and it greatly reduced the amount of errors the agent makes because it can get immediate feedback it has done something stupid.

Of course you still need to review the code because it doesn't solve logic bugs.

by apitman2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

cargo check is faster; it's not fast

by masijo4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

>Being in a tight AI loop just wasn't part of the design of any existing programming languages.

I would dare to say that any Lisp (Common Lisp, Clojure, Racket, whatever) is perfect for a tight AI loop thanks to REPL-driven development. It's an interesting space to explore and I know that the Clojure community at least are trying to figure out something there.

by raincole8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Quite sure it's not about the language but the domain.

by staticassertion6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Agreed. When I've written very low level code where there are "odd" constraints ("this function must never take a lock, no system calls can be made" etc) the LLM would accidentally violate them. It seems sort of obvious why - the vast majority of code it is trained on does not have those constraints.