1. Type safety as basic guard rails that LLM output is syntactically and schematically correct
2. Concise since you have to review a lot more code
3. Easy to debug / good observability since you can't rely on your understanding of the code. Something functional where you can observe the state at any moment would be ideal.
4. A very large set of public code examples across various domains so there's enough training data for the LLM to be proficient in that language
5. A large open source ecosystem of libraries to write less code and avoid the tendency for generated code to bloat
It's basically all the same things you look for in general. I think TypeScript scores high here but I'm curious if anyone knows of a language that fits these criteria better.
Golang. People trash it for being verbose on errors but it's an extremely readable language and it's almost like bash, only much stronger typed and with a very rich stdlib (so it's not likely you'll need a library for a quick script).
It's more or less a perfect replacement for Python for "one-off programs" and "quick scripts". Many bonus points for not having to fight shell quotation rules and trying to remember differences between sh, bash and zsh.
This is just Kotlin. Strongly typed, more concise than Java or Go (and probably Typescript), less likely to blow up at runtime than Typescript, epic tooling, plenty of public code, and a library for basically anything because JVM.
The less you have to buy, the more money you have. Or the more stolen goods you sell, the more money you have. Or the more stolen goods you can give to others, the more goodwill you can get with them and possibly favors which can save you money elsewhere.
For every DUI arrest made, state police troopers must appear in court, and in evidence motions filed with the court, attorneys have said this has led to a staggering amount of overtime pay for Trooper Bradley.
State records show in 2024, Bradley nearly tripled his salary, earning nearly $250,000 in one year."
Are you implying there's a link between having money and being immune to corruption? In the US, just look at the federal government or titans of industry, like Elon Musk.
A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist (I didn’t vote for Trump) but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected. We should also ask ourselves who really wanted this war and how they have so much leverage over our country to instigate it when 50-60% of Americans do not support it. We should ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support. We should also ask ourselves how Congress failed to stop this war which has been illegally executed without congressional approval. It’s all very curious if you think about it.
We can’t just keep finger pointing at the other party whenever things go wrong. There are systemic issues and outside influences destroying this country. Some people think this will all be fixed when democrats take over again in November but they’re wrong and the cycle will continue just with a more presentable veneer of decency.
I'd just like to remind everyone that this guy got fired from Fox News for being too extreme an idealogue.
> I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist
At some point you have to hold adult Republicans accountable for their actions. They were warned repeatedly; they chose to ignore the warnings.
> ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support
Americans love war and guns! This is like, #1 national characteristic as observed by other nations. Especially because America always wins in the movies! The reason Americans are complaining about the Iran war and not the illegal Venezuelan invasion or whatever is because they are losing.
> Well, he did win Democrat votes as well because the party put up such horrible candidates twice.
In the last cycle, the Democratic Party stumbled egregiously, no question; but the functionally binary choice was between a predictable, if unoriginal bureaucrat vs. a documented prodigious liar and adjudicated rapist. I suppose for some tiny number of self-identifying progressives that would be toss-up, but I would love to understand the value system that could produce such a decision.
"But ultimately Carlson’s escalating toxicity, which included an undercurrent of white supremacy and a penchant for demeaning women and minorities, led Lachlan Murdoch, the then chief executive of Fox Corp, to pull the plug, the book says."
The article says too big for his boots and part responsible for a $787m libel judgement. Also called Senior Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications a cunt. Doesn't mention idealogue.
>At some point you have to hold adult Republicans accountable for their actions. They were warned repeatedly; they chose to ignore the warnings.
The challenge is that with a 2-party system it was take a chance Trump wouldn't be worse than he was the first time, or continue with the Democratic platform, which is not necessarily in alignment with a LOT of people. My personal feeling is that this administration has driven the country off a cliff in a spectacularly fast order. I also think the Democrats positions had us heading for a cliff, but it was at least further away.
Trump ran on solving SOME of the right problems. He and all the Republican leadership unfortunately have NONE of the right solutions. I fear the Democrats will think that a rebuke of Trump this election would be a mandate for many of their polices. It isn't, it is a rebuke of the horrible job Trump has done.
Tax the rich, solve healthcare, take note that our country is in an economic battle with other countries, and realize the best form of freedom is when everyone has economic opportunity and stability. Both parties "say" they want these things, the Republicans outright lie about it and the Dems do nothing.
> but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected.
Education. Actually teaching people how to think critically about what they see and hear needs to start as soon as they get a phone in their hand, if not sooner. That education in critical thinking needs to come from family, school, social clubs and religious institutions. I don't think that'll ever happen in America though. Our economy depends on people not thinking critically.
Time and time again, I keep finding that the people insisting schools teach "Critical thinking" were the exact people who didn't pay attention in English class when that was taught.
Like when people used to say that "Schools should teach useful things like balancing a checkbook or paying your taxes". Which is funny, because the skills required to do those two things are addition, subtraction, and reading.
Americans don't learn because Americans are adamant that they shouldn't have to pay attention to learn, that school is a liberal scam, that broad willful ignorance is not something to be ashamed of, that they have more important things to care about.
Families who value education have always gotten a good education in the USA, and that isn't about choosing a private school either. It's about the person needing an education getting personally invested in gaining that education.
Meanwhile Bush Jr gave us an educational regime where schools cannot at all hold back someone who really needs to be held back. So the curriculum needed to be dumbed down to accommodate people.
> Americans don't learn because Americans are adamant that they shouldn't have to pay attention to learn, that school is a liberal scam, that broad willful ignorance is not something to be ashamed of, that they have more important things to care about.
That's why it can't just be school. It needs to be a societal thing that goes beyond schools to all the other places people get socialized and learn. I mean maybe churches, social groups, and families are all teaching the willful ignorance you're talking about, but if they are that's what needs to change. People need to hear the same thing from different places before they'll believe it sometimes.
This comment contains so many different issues that it is impossible to say why it is downvoted. My guess is that any comment that mentions bipartisanship is going to be downvoted.
US foreign policy is and has always been bipartisan. One side is a bit more restrained and has better manners, the other overtly says what is going on.
Yes, Tucker Carlson should have known what was going to happen because he has been in politics for so long. For the average voter who is busy with other things, it takes at least 8 years of intensely following one Democrat president and one Republican. The mainstream media is of little use, since they report daily statements and political theater.
You need to read the think tank papers and follow bipartisan hearings like the Senate Armed Services Committee where there is no difference between R/D except for blaming the other side for current events.
"lying is free" and it has no consequences for these people. whether it is WMDs or war or fiat money printing with trillions or killing millions. What you people call justice is, well it's obv. so no need to write about it. These facts dont change with two party or three party, it's cultural btw.
We all know how some cultures are violent and backwards to each other? some or like this, just different culture
> A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning.
That was just their nice-sounding excuse for voting for him. It's not like they are going to go out and say that they like him because of his jingoistic machismo authoritarian 'strong'-man bullshit.
They'll performatively grumble for a bit, but are all ready to vote for the guy a fourth time in 2028.
Well the simple reason they voted for him is that they are all extremely rich capital owners who wanted his tax cuts. That's the same reason that farm megacorps voted for him even though he destroyed tens of billions of farm revenue with his stupidity in trade wars.
Rich people would rather the country burn than pay 1% more in taxes. It's purely ideological too, as they regularly spend tons to save a little in taxes.
My theory is that basically everything is controlled by income inequality and interest rates. AI should not, in theory, lead to a loss of creativity. If anything, we should see a creative explosion because it’s easier to create more and better things. If nothing else, generative AI is a great tool for brainstorming and prototyping ideas.
What we’re seeing is the over capitalization of everything, everyone is stressed out about making money due to rising inequality and rising costs of core needs like housing and healthcare.
The Renaissance happened because there were enough people with wealth that they felt free to explore art or give their money to artists without expecting a return on their investment. No one does things today as an expression of their soul, they do it to make money. Like the article suggests, people made things because they were happy, sad, horny, or mad. Now they do it for money.
We need to loosen up society’s obsession with accruing wealth, it ruins everything. What we’re witnessing is well described by the term Late Stage Capitalism, or what I like to call The Great Enshittification. It’ll only change when we decide to create something like a social safety net that lets people feel more free to create art that doesn’t need to provide an income.
The interest in AI is global and spans nearly every corner of the Internet, it’s not something exclusive to HN. The root cause of this is #1 by a wide margin. Our society is governed by money, the investor class sees an opportunity to become trillionaires, the labor class is afraid of becoming the permanent underclass, all of these things are defined by money.
My fear is I’m socially awkward, I might do or say something I genuinely didn’t know was awkward, and that person will make a TikTok video of me and ruin my life. I’ve seen videos from people posting about “creeps at the gym” and it’s just a guy looking in the direction of the girl taking the video, and it seems like just looking in the general direction of someone for too long could make you a public example of a creep, and that’s basically my nightmare.
And people might say “well if you know you didn’t do anything wrong so you shouldn’t be worried” but I’ve gotten into trouble many times for things I knew weren’t wrong but you can’t rationally argue with herd mentality when a group of people decide something is a faux pas.
Luckily people don't film in my gym, but watching Joey Swoll [1] I've seen plenty of idiots (often young women) who try to make someone in the background of their video look bad. It's always completely obvious that the person in the background (who probably doesn't want to be filmed) is not staring or being a creep, even though heavy zoom and slow-motion is used to "prove" something. Ridiculous.
You’re basically so petrified of bricking prod and getting fired that you refuse to even start on your first ticket. The catastrophic outcome is low probability and not worth fretting over.
Going out and risking embarrassment is the price of admission for leaving the house. If you do say something silly, you have the opportunity to learn from it and grow a little bit.
Those TikTok videos are usually fake or bait. 99% of people do not think you’re weird or creepy for existing.
I for one am delighted for my acquaintances in the medical field with their cushy, cartel-supported salaries to feel the existential dread of AI coming for their jobs like I have
I'm sorry that you are feeling existential dread about your career. It could help to stop listening to the hype that the people selling AI are spewing and take a hard look at the tools themselves. Like most products, they aren't as good as the salespeople say they are. Also, take any predictions for how these products will do in the future with a huge grain of salt. Predicting the future is very difficult. It's taken us 70 years of computer and AI research and development to get to this point. It's likely that the rate of improvement will not change drastically. Yes, things are changing, but the singularity (still) is not coming tomorrow
Oh no, imagine the people that save human lives having high salaries, the horror.
If you, like me, are in the software field, know that this is likely the most comfortable job even invented by humanity, we should really be paid just above the poverty line in exchange.
However many others in society save lives that are not so lavishly praised or financially rewarded.
For example in New Zealand median pay for a Road Design Engineer is about $100k NZD compared to a GP (doctor) getting $240k. Plus the doctor gets paid a massive overpayment of social status.
Over a 40-year career, an average NZ GP will save 5 to 10 lives. The Road Design Engineer saves 40 to 120 lives. Road engineers in NZ prevent roughly 10x more serious injuries than they do deaths so it isn't just death stats.
Our hypothetical engineer should be paid > 10x more than the doctor on raw stats.
It gets harder when we start looking at quality of life versus raw lifetime numbers. You then need to consider the value of say entertainment (a good movie) versus the hypothtical lives saved by spending the budget elsewhere.
A game designer might be valued highly by a gamer mum, and negatively by their children and gaming widowed dad.
Give me a break, most of them are glorified drug dealers. Their salaries are inflated by an artificially capped supply of doctors, at the cost of patients.
I had to leave my job this year because of burnout when the execs mandated that we use AI tools, become our own designers, PMs, and QA, and double our velocity. They run through a decision tree they leaned in residency every day and I’m learning how to do 3-4 other people’s jobs on top of whatever the new AI thing is. I was working nights and weekends while my friends in medicine are planning their 3rd vacation this year to Tuscany.
Wealthy white dude edging towards senility taking a liking to bathrobe social media shorts. Take a guess. It's going to involve a political party and a lot of weird public takes unrelated to software.
Even just purely on a professional level, he’s clean code architecture was very bad advice, which was marketed and hyped up to something it never deserved. The software industry should have cancelled Uncle Bob like archeologists cancelled Graham Hancock purely for his professional opinions (though I am not against cancelling him for his political opinions either; we can do both).
Doesn't really seem fair, I'm gonna be a old white man some day, ain't really that much I can do about it...(Well, I suppose sex changes are a thing now, but really?)
Are you going to be wealthy, with your head buried in the firehose of an algorithmic feed? Those are things you can do something about.
Alternatively, you could take a crack at deconstructing whiteness. Depending how young you currently are, you might be able to make a dent by the time you're an old man. That's trickier though, because it involves serious social reform. Or if sociology isn't your deal, maybe you could become a biologist, and cure old age?
1. Type safety as basic guard rails that LLM output is syntactically and schematically correct
2. Concise since you have to review a lot more code
3. Easy to debug / good observability since you can't rely on your understanding of the code. Something functional where you can observe the state at any moment would be ideal.
4. A very large set of public code examples across various domains so there's enough training data for the LLM to be proficient in that language
5. A large open source ecosystem of libraries to write less code and avoid the tendency for generated code to bloat
It's basically all the same things you look for in general. I think TypeScript scores high here but I'm curious if anyone knows of a language that fits these criteria better.
reply