I personally find it much more painful to generate valid Rust code that compiles and does what I want than e.g. valid python code that runs and does what I want.

▲

dnautics 12 hours ago | parent [-]

i think it's pretty clear that some of "the things you expect to make an LLM good at a language" (like strong typing) are not actually the case. other things like "don't indirect your code by jumping to something unexpected" might be more important.

▲

manquer 12 hours ago | parent [-]

If anything llms would be poorer in codegen for static languages because they are more verbose - More tokens to generate and use limited context windows parsing code.

The advantage rather for llms in strongly typed languages is that compilers can catch errors early and give the model early automated feedback so you don’t have to.

With weakly typed (and typically interpreted) languages they will need to run the code which maybe quite slow to do so or not realistic.

Simply put agentic coding loops prefer stronger static analysis capabilities.

	▲	dnautics 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		not necessarily. if your refactoring loop requires too many cycles you'll fall off the attention context window. also, some nonstatic languages have a habit of having least surprise in their codebases -- it's often possible to effectively guess the types flowing through at the callsite. zero refactoring feedback necessary is better than even one.