That's a really, really interesting point.

It makes me imagine a programming language designed for LLMs but not humans, designed for rigorous specification of every function, variable, type, etc., valid inputs and outputs, tightly coupled to unit tests, mandatory explicit handling of every exception, etc.

Maybe it'll look like a lot of boilerplate but make it easy to read as opposed to easy to write.

The idea of a language that is extremely high-effort to write, but massively assists in guaranteeing correctness, could be ideal for LLM's.

▲

0xbadcafebee 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So, Eiffel or Ada and TLA+

▲

cgh 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s what the article is about.

	▲	crazygringo 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it's not. The article proposes the idea of a language designed for vibe-coding, and suggests several variants designed for specific purposes. But none of the variants are for the purpose I suggested, which is about maximizing correctness. That's the point I was making.

▲

ModernMech 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm writing one of these, I'll post it on HN next year. The key to a language for LLMs is: make sure all the context is local, and explicit. If you have functions, use parameters for arguments instead of positions. If you have types, spell them out right there. Also, don't use too many tokens, so keywords are out. And that's just a start.

I think the ideal language for LLMs will look more like APL than C.