Only on the Internet is this true, not in real life. I cannot and do not trust any of these things to do a proper job because they have not in any situation succeeded in any job I've given them. And no company I deal with claims otherwise
It might make sense to learn now, before everyone expects that you be an expert with this tool in order to do your job. On the other hand perhaps they will be easier to learn if you wait.
There is an incredible amount of nuance to be had in using LLMs and we reached the stage, probably only in the last few weeks where all the pieces have fallen into place such that if you are skilled at using the LLMs just about all of the previous problems with them can now be easily mitigated. If you learn how. There is a lot to learn.
- You need to have a mental model to grow an idea
- When a pattern is known you can use a library!
- When a pattern is not known AI will make stuff up
No matter how "good" coding with an AI will become there is no way you get around learning, having someone understand what's going on and take responsibility.
I'm fine with formal checking and fuzzing or getting hints where a bug might come from - but these are iterations on tools we used before like a debugger, strict types, functional programming and well fuzzing.
I tried to have an AI iterate on a step i don't fully understand yet and i always regretted it. Highly interconnected projects will grind to a halt until you do learn.
You can check with people doing highly specced software in the medical domain that even with very good specs there is ambiguity in natural language thus it can never be the source of reliable and manageable software.
However - i read about some smart guys in the 40s or so encountering the need for a formal language to tell a computer what to do with 0 ambiguity and i think they called it a "programming language"
Still glad I basically never have to debug a build issue or memory error again though
Lack of documentation used to be a running joke.
The goose_spec.txt in 2019 would be "goose is like c and rust only with syntax like array{;}[] btw it uses a small amount of stacks instead of malloc."0 10klocs.
Now, we make sure the AI leaves documentation so it can figure out what it was doing earlier.
A local model a few generations and many weights behind newest Claude can implement my novel algorithms and write the documentation I wouldn't.
Yes, many times it does dumb CS for kindergarten mistakes but it only has to work towards the optimum every once in a while.
With the tutorial, the summary also makes more sense. I have not read the other parts yet, but so far I like what I see.
All is in pretty good taste, and I like what I've seen so far. I do not care if the author himself came up with the idea, or if AI came up with it and the author approved.
I do not understand why you "have to" know this to make use of it. You can judge ideas independently of where they came from (and you should).
Couldn’t make it more than a few sentences in before the bile started to build up in the back of my throat and I had to back out. It’s shocking to me that people knowingly post unedited Claude-slop drivel and are seemingly unashamed about it. In 2026, it seems the main role of technical humans should be to act as a barrier between our agents’ output and other humans.
Apparently, this can actually assist the LLM:
https://silly.business/blog/we-should-revisit-literate-progr...
as discussed here previously:
I'd love to experiment with this myself.
That's without even mentioning that AI writing can often state the what but not the why. That human perspective is usually the most valuable knowledge to get across in writing.
Of course Humans can make errors when translating that to English. But if you’ve read any amount of Claudish it should be obvious that interpolating the code to documentation with an LLM typically produces a significantly worse result in almost every way. Except for superficially “sounding” correct.
Plus, if a human puts the effort into writing something, that signals to me that it's worth something, because human time is much more scarce than LLM time.
You cannot tell either from the AI written docs. I'd rather OP gave a rambling post about some problem he has in gamedev that led him to think a new language was needed, why the constraints are different, and how this will improve X, Y, or Z in his own words. Then I can infer what this project is and where it is going. Right now, I have no clue.
The author has written that post about why the language came about. He doesn't owe you that, but he did it anyway. He doesn't owe you anything more. You can use it or not. Advising him to throw away all the documentation and rewrite it again by hand from scratch so that adastra22 can deign to examine it further is ridiculous.
If you have a question about whether or not this further iterations will fit your specific (and so far undescribed) particular use case, the correct avenue for that is to ask the author politely. Or Fable; Fable could probably tell you without having to bother the author. But holy cow, the entitlement.
We're talking about a programming language. Languages, and their compilers, evolve over time. Where is this one headed?
The way to find out if a language is suitable for your needs is not to demand, in an entitled way, that the author perform an act for you. It is to (a) ask the author politely; or, failing that, (b) to examine it yourself (or ask Fable to evaluate it, using tokens you paid for).
This particular language, further, is Apache 2.0 licensed. If it's not working for you, fix it. Jesus.
For a programming language? It's subpar and you know it.
See this for a language docs site by a small-ish team, but a significant effort was put into making it nice to read: https://tour.gleam.run/everything/
This one is easy: I'd read the docs if it were written by a human, but I won't read them if they're written by Claude.
> Nested data stays inline. A string, an array of strings, a record with variable-size fields and an array of those records are each one contiguous block with no pointer in it. A record that is 160 bytes and an allocation in C++ is 29 bytes and none in Goose.
I’m having trouble parsing that last sentence.
Even Rust's "enum" feature, which can store different sized things all in the same space, does that at the cost of the smallest variant being just as big as the biggest.
Goose can do all of that not only inline (no pointers), but with variable size, meaning small items take less space. It's like a serialized data representation, but iterable. It makes for big space savings vs these languages.
I have both what I call inline sequences, and out-of-line ones (store an offset to the object itself rather than pointers).
I made all my sizes and offset 32-bit, but I suppose they could have been 16-bit.
Doesn't that waste a lot of space? Or is there something I'm missing?
Also it would seem to force every allocation to go through the OS kernel to allocate unless there's some trick to avoid that.
For example, suppose we have a function with a growable array that calls another function (without passing said array) that also uses a growable array as some temporary scratch space. Then the first function's array isn't being used when the second is sleeping, so the inner function's array could safely share the stack because it will all be freed with a single pointer restore once the second function exits.
Now, I actually don't know how the compiler works but as I understand it does things similar to my example to optimize the number of stacks needed (but let's wait for WvO to confirm or deny whether my understanding matches reality).
Plenty of trees only ever grow. And that's the normal type of array in Goose. However you can also have arrays that can grow and shrink, if you have a tree that is constantly in flux.
Either way it'll be one stack for an entire tree.
How you deal with the inner stack growing depends, ideally they don't grow (construction only), or you can make them fixed size, or with a capacity, or in the worst case, as a pool. The language has facilities for all of these.
No, you can typically only assume 48 bits of virtual address space; the kernel takes half of it, so really only 47 bits. Newer CPUs provide 57 bits (e.g., Zen 4) or 52 bits (certain ARM64 models). And that's provided that the kernel plays ball; apparently some Android configurations only support 39 bits of user virtual address space.
So, I read it as, "C++ uses 160 bytes and an allocation, when Goose requires 29 bytes and no allocation".
how to perform this copy without atomics?
do the workers run as threads or processes?
also you claim it's faster than rust and c++. but for certain kinds of software it's certainly (and substantially) slower, right?
The workers are threads. The separate memory is the concurrency model, but it's still single process, multiple threads.
The "faster than" is on average, and both in my own benchmarks and independent benchmarks you can find examples of algorithms where it is slower, but they tend to be the exception. "substantially" slower I haven't found yet.
Well message passing with literal memcpys (rather than, say, just a shared buffer, like is common in Rust) is very expensive when the messages are huge. Of course as the message size increases, the Rust program will become faster than the Goose one (and if it doesn't, you should look into your benchmarks)
Being more specific, it means that for each message, we are writing on memory twice - one to build our own buffer with the message, and another to make a copy to another worker. Message passing violates, in spirit, the Goose rule that things are built on their end destination: we can't write into a buffer owned by another task, so we need to first write on our own buffer, and then do a copy, which is a lot like first writing the value to the stack, then copying the heap. Writing twice has an overhead, specially when messages don't fit in the cache - you just need benchmarks with sufficiently large messages to demonstrate it.
Beyond that, there are some algorithms that can be made much faster when written with atomics rather than message passing. (Also there are algorithms that will get faster if you use locks! Locks aren't always slower). It's just a matter of finding such examples, and writing a Rust code that will use atomics, compared to a Goose program that uses messages between workers because Goose doesn't expose atomics to the user.
So if you didn't find such examples, it's because you didn't specifically write benchmarks with those scenarios in mind (or, I mean, didn't told your LLM to write this).
That is: if the Rust program and the Goose program do the same thing in the same way, then it's reasonable that Goose is faster on average. But Goose is limited because it doesn't let you do some things, but Rust does, so to compare the languages you need to find those cases where the Goose limitations end up making the software slower
That is about where our similarities end, though, since I'm doing quite a lot of other stuff in the midst as well (much heavier type stuff, fully incremental, retargetable, reflection, integer range tracking, blah blah blah), and the more goals you have, the complexity blows up exponentially. I do think that the region based memory part alone is worthwhile to have as a language feature, so I applaud your pragmatism. I like your syntax for returning through call stacks, too.
There are other languages that do this, though. Did you look into any of the others? Or ones like Odin which give you the configurable bump allocators and scratch space as well? Mainly I'm curious about your opinions of prior art.
anyway, hope this project goes well! the secret of the arena allocator seems to be out now to the mainstream. I think this is also a strength of array programming languages in the tradition of APL/J/K/Q.
As this project develops, I'll get to benefit from your public crowd sourced testing and design before having to publicize mine :P
Once the initial compiler was there it became easier, as Fable is rather good of working within the context of what is already there.
Hows the compile time? Do you have a number or is it similar to another language?
Optimized builds go thru the local C compiler, so they are limited by the speed of that. Dev/test build can use the built-in libtcc JIT which is super fast.
Whether it would make sense in this AI world was not a consideration.
The syntax and semantics were mostly designed for humans. That said, using it optimally asks a lot of the human, and in turns out the better LLMs don't break a sweat using it, so maybe it accidentally hits the spot. Goose with LLM can give you lots of speed without the effort.
In some weird way it is a great time to make new languages, because the downside of convincing humans to learn it is gone. Anyone that has a project that needs to be fast can decide to use Goose for it at very little cost.
> I made this one because I had a really strong design in mind that I think should exist.
I'm wondering what kind of architectural corners this forces the programmer into ... have you found any so far?
It certainly requires the programmer to rethink how they structure their data, as you have to think of where it is going to be stored, and how to store it in a way such that it will have similar lifetimes to what it is stored with, to get the most out of the language.
How are you deciding how many stacks to use?
The programmer choose what to store where, so you typically store things in arrays by lifetime. Goose gives you many more tools to do that, it can store entire variable sized trees of an enum type in a single array.
You try to avoid having to deallocate in mixed/random order, but if you absolutely must, you can turn arrays into pools, basically.
I'm a bit confused about how you could decide the number of stacks at compile time. I can see you could see how many arrays are lexically in scope. However if the code puts one dynamic array inside another dynamic array I can get to an unbounded number of total stacks without ever needing more than two in lexical scope at once. Do you also add stacks at runtime? Like a stack of stacks?
The spec on your GitHub says: "Two simultaneously-live resizable values never share a stack."
So I surely can't have a dynamic array of dynamic arrays share a single stack? That's an unbounded number of resizeable values sharing a stack?
You could make it work on a single stack but that would involve having non-contiguous memory for each inner array since you can add to any array in any order.
The spec implies that we need one stack per element of the outer dynamic array which would let you have contiguous memory for each inner array, but you wouldn't know how many stacks you needed at compile time.
Depending on your needs you use one of these solutions.
*And really in most if not all, Raku excluded**, languages.
**In Raku junctions can be specified with infix ops, i.e. a | b, a & b, a ^ b, equivalent to list ops any(...), all(...), one(...) respectively, and can define a custom one for none(...).
With Goose, the core design favors speed over everything else. Though not only was I able to make that safe, it is fairly pleasant to use. But it remains a low level systems language that requires you to think hard about data organization.
Lobster is a waaay more high level language made to be pleasant to use first, fast second. Surprisingly though, it can get pretty close in speed to C++/Rust nowadays too, but still a lot slower than Goose.
How have you found AI at writing Goose or Lobster code, if you give them a skill or something, are they relatively competent at actually writing code in the language?
Both are really interesting projects, BTW - thank you! I've been meaning to try Lobster out but haven't found time, I think this might be the push I needed.
Self-hosting would be cool too, but for both Lobster and Goose I've tried to keep it simple for people to build the language in any environment, which is why its still all in C++.
I don't use any "skills". From what I can see, the #1 way an AI produces "good code" is to simply work in the context of existing good code. I don't need to hold it by a style guide, it seems to infer that from context just fine. At least Fable does, other models less so.
"Just Git Gud First" - Wouter van Oortmerssen
LLMs are pattern matching machines. Your code is the base template that will determine all patterns moving forward. No amount of context engineering or prompting can save your code from itself.
Pragmatically, it suggests we need a much greater investment in code quality, and much less hand-wringing over AI tooling.
For context: I'm very active on the Goose discord (and have been following WvO's languages since Lobster was announced on Google Groups eons ago). I goof around there too, and forgot for a moment that outside of that chat it wouldn't be obvious that I'm being tongue-in-cheek.
Do you know if Goose is the first time something like this has been done?
There is lots of prior art on the individual parts of the design, e.g. "regions" and various stack languages etc, see: https://github.com/aardappel/goose/blob/master/docs/design/p...
Part of this is that 64-bit address spaces make this design practical, and almost all languages in use today were designed with the limitations of 32-bit in mind. Once you can assign arrays huge amounts of address space, you don't have to realloc, which gets you stable pointers, and a lot of the other Goose features.
(And why isn't it Amiga E?)
As for Amiga E, I am very proud of having made it way back when obviously, but it doesn't stack up against my more modern languages (Goose and Lobster), so I think I'll leave it be :)