upvote

points

by muragekibicho1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby marcosdumay1 days ago|
next
[-]
Mixed with some complaints on how the community doesn't like vibe-coding, and that if you insist on not letting AI think for you, you will be left to die in the dust of the other competitors.

The amount of certainty random people have that LLMs have already revolutionized software development seems to be directly proportional to the media awareness of the AI companies finance unsustainability.

reply
upvoteby weinzierl1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This thought completely neglects the idea that Haskell probably needs significantly less compiler runs because every run catches more errors and gives more information about them.

And that is not even considering how often the agent needs to run tests to get it right.

reply
upvoteby derdi1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It seems pretty clear that they do only minimal live testing during the "open a ticket, implement something, deploy it in production, all while the customer is still on the call" cycles. So your second concern is probably not relevant in this particular setting.

Regarding the first, I think you're probably right, but then again, if there is a 15-minute base cost, it's hard to amortize that through fewer incremental runs of the compiler.

(Which isn't to say that I think they are doing the right thing.)

reply
upvoteby lenkite22 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I am wondering whether next year there will be re-write of Scarf after the vibe-code degenerative collapse of their source code into un-maintainability. At some point, the LLM patch/fix cycle will devolve into straitjacket.
reply
upvoteby aviaviavi1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The number of compiler runs doesn't matter as much as the total elapsed time it takes to finish the task. In just about every test we ran, LLMs are faster at building in Python than Haskell.
reply
upvoteby andersmurphy14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Lisp/smalltalk programmers have been going on about this tradeoff for a long time. It mattered before LLMs too. Lisp/Clojure repl allowing you to compile tiny parts of your program inside your running program is incredible for your feedback/iteration loop.

Ironically, this is also what makes them shine with LLMs, the LLM has access to the running program and can modify it while it's running to get feedback instantly.

Complex type systems are cool. But, they are not free. I say this as someone who's first programming language was Haskell.

reply
upvoteby cubefox13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> I say this as someone who's first programming language was Haskell.

Amazing. How did that happen? Is it true that functional programming is only counterintuitive because almost everyone starts out with an imperative language?

reply
upvoteby lelanthran12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> The number of compiler runs doesn't matter as much as the total elapsed time it takes to finish the task. In just about every test we ran, LLMs are faster at building in Python than Haskell.

How much faster? IOW, what's the difference (in minutes/seconds, not in percentages) between vibing Haskell and vibing Python?

reply
upvoteby jimbokun1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Maybe overly verbose but makes an important point.

Slow compile times should have been a deal breaker for how they impacted human coders. LLM coding just makes the problem more stark.

reply
upvoteby andersmurphy14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah compile times have always mattered. It's why games often have a scripting layer in lua despite the engines being C/C++.
reply
upvoteby whateveracct1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Haskell Foundation member mind got cursed by wearing the CEO hat and he forgot to "avoid (success at all costs)" kek
reply
upvoteby woadwarrior0119 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Granted LLMs aren't very good at the ML family of languages. Isn't vibecoding a lot safer with a typed language? Going from Haskell to Python is going from one end of the typing spectrum to the other.
reply