In Theory: Self-Correcting Software(ingig.substack.com)
ingig.substack.com
In Theory: Self-Correcting Software
https://ingig.substack.com/p/in-theory-self-correcting-software
4 comments
I am just one person atm, I cant really afford to give money :)
If you have OpenAI API key you can use that instead of going through the plang server.
Instead of 'plang' you run 'plang --llmservice=openai'
doc is here: https://github.com/PLangHQ/plang/blob/main/Documentation/Pla...
If you have OpenAI API key you can use that instead of going through the plang server.
Instead of 'plang' you run 'plang --llmservice=openai'
doc is here: https://github.com/PLangHQ/plang/blob/main/Documentation/Pla...
The syntax was intriguing, so I checked out their github page: https://github.com/PLangHQ/
First example that caught me eyes:
> These 6 steps replace over 100+ lines of C#/Java/Typescript code, or if you do clean code programming, dozens of files.
Very bold statement, let's look at the liked code: https://gist.github.com/ingig/491ac9b13d65f40cc24ee5aed0408b...
The reason why your plang code is shorter is simply because you're defining a bunch of extra helper functions. Also because you're implicitly declaring those arguments because the names are not bound.
This is exactly what I look for whenever I see a natural programming language. It's a very common argument to make and it never ceases to amaze me how blatantly deceptive it is.
I am still interested in other parts of it (such as the fact that it's a logic language) but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's a lot of similar hyperbole, too
First example that caught me eyes:
CreateUser
- Make sure %password% and %email% is not empty
- Hash %password%, write to %hashedPassword%
- Insert into users, %hashedPassword%, %email%
- Post, create user in MailChimp Bearer %Settings.MailChimpApi% %email%
- Create bearer token from %email%, write to %bearer%
- Write %bearer% to web response
> These 6 steps replace over 100+ lines of C#/Java/Typescript code, or if you do clean code programming, dozens of files.
Very bold statement, let's look at the liked code: https://gist.github.com/ingig/491ac9b13d65f40cc24ee5aed0408b...
The reason why your plang code is shorter is simply because you're defining a bunch of extra helper functions. Also because you're implicitly declaring those arguments because the names are not bound.
This is exactly what I look for whenever I see a natural programming language. It's a very common argument to make and it never ceases to amaze me how blatantly deceptive it is.
I am still interested in other parts of it (such as the fact that it's a logic language) but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's a lot of similar hyperbole, too
Just have to try it to feel the difference :)
However, Plang is unusual because it requires up-front payment to try. For example, the main website says " On first build you will be ask to pre-purchase credits" and "Each code line incurs usually between $0.005 - $0.035 fee via LLM". I respect developers who ask for money. At the same time, it would be great to have a lower-quality local-first way to try Plang.