Programming

17513 readers

274 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

139

Which language you wish would really grow and reach mainstream adoption? (self.programming)

submitted 1 year ago by ICastFist to c/programming

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Assume mainstream adoption as used by around 7% of all github projects

Personally, I'd like to see Nim get that growth.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] coloredgrayscale 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A compiler has mostly fixed rules for translation. The English language often is ambiguous and there are many ways to implement something based on a verbal description.

Programming by using the ai as a "compiler" would likely lead to many bugs that will be hard to impossible to trace without knowing the underlying implementation. But hitting compile again may lead to an accidental correct implementation and you'd be none the wiser why the test suddenly passes.

It's ok as an assistant to generate boilerplate code, and warn you about some bugs / issues. Maybe a baseline implementation.

But by the time you've exactly described what and how you want it you may as well just write some higher level code.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

A compiler has mostly fixed rules for translation.

Some compilers are simple, while some are complicated. An AI compiler would of course be very complicated. However, it still would have "fixed rules". It's just that these rules would be decided by itself. If u r a software dev, u r also an English-to-xyz-language-compiler. You do what your client tells u to do more or less correctly, right? Junior devs do what senior devs tell them to do kinda correctly, right? An AI compiler would be the same thing.

Programming by using the ai as a "compiler" would likely lead to many bugs that will be hard to impossible to trace without knowing the underlying implementation.

Bugs would be likely if your AI compiler was dumb. The probability of bugs would reduce drastically if ur AI compiler was trained more/on better data.

It's ok as an assistant to generate boilerplate code, and warn you about some bugs / issues. Maybe a baseline implementation.

That is the state of AI today. What you are describing are the capabilities of current AI models. However, I cannot see how this is a criticism of the idea of AI compilers themselves.

But by the time you've exactly described what and how you want it you may as well just write some higher level code.

Again. The smarter your model, the more you can abstract your stuff.