HackerLangs
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

crux

1,545 karmajoined 18년 전
http://zdsmith.com

[email protected]

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/zdsmith; my proof: https://keybase.io/zdsmith/sigs/nn3-X3J7_ifPWLjxXAIjIUqBjcVfDja9v4vLKxvf8-M ]

Submissions

Show HN: Pantagruel, an Accessible Specification Language

pantagruel-language.com
4 points·by crux·5개월 전·0 comments

Stolze-Smith Shorthand

stolze-smith.com
3 points·by crux·6개월 전·0 comments

comments

crux
·15시간 전·discuss
I strongly agree with the premise of this article, which is why I am surprised that the author moved away from Haskell to Python.

For some time now it’s felt clear (or at least extremely) compelling that agents need fast compile times in order to be effective, especially when you’re working in parallel. But the other thing that has felt just as obvious is that agents need strong type systems and narrow guardrails in order to constrain their outputs. These two things felt clear enough to me that, like the author, I wanted to choose a language ecosystem that maximized them. There _are_ languages that both have expressive type systems _and_ fast compile times. I wonder if the author investigated any of them, before deciding that no compilation time at all was acceptable.

In my case I landed in OCaml. I think there are other options in the space—Go if you want less typing but faster compiles; Rust if you want more types but slower compiles. My mostly vibes-based evaluation landed on OCaml, and I’ve been pretty happy with the results.