Gleam has caught my eye for the past year or so, and I'd totally learn it if I didn't believe firmly that we won't be coding by hand within the next 9 months. It'll all be done by LLMs so syntax and ergonomics won't mean too much. At least as soon as LLMs learn to stop being turbo-slop generators.

▲

IshKebab 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

9 months? I mean... 9 years maybe. There's absolutely no way we won't be coding by hand in 9 months, unless the only thing you do is landing pages and CRUD forms.

	▲	sgt 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not even 9 years, I'm thinking 30-40 years.
	▲	arcanemachiner 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Never underestimate the ability of the software industry to shit in its own mouth.

▲

buggy6257 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

See you in 9 months then to check back.

	▲	tgv 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Anthropic's CEO said 6 months, 6 months ago. https://futurism.com/six-months-anthropic-coding

▲

echelon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> if I didn't believe firmly that we won't be coding by hand within the next 9 months.

LLM-assisted coding is awesome, but it feels like a self-driving style problem.

It's going to take 20 years to get there.

▲

a3w 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doe LLMs write valid Gleam programs? Trying with ChatGPT three years ago, it did not. Workarounds, like "here is the syntax as a system prompt", put into the prompt I would not consider understanding, as Gleam idioms and patterns will certainly not all fit.

	▲	adastra22 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		GP is crazy, but if you are basing your view of what LLMs can do based on ChatGPT 3 years ago, that is just as much out of touch.
	▲	perrygeo 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The entire Gleam language tour (https://tour.gleam.run/everything/) is comprehensive. It contains examples of every language feature and prints to less than 70 pages - easily fits into the context window of any recent LLM.

▲

0x3f 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You should learn Gleam then.