> every AI coding bot will learn your new language as a matter of course after its next update includes the contents of your website.

How will it "learn" anything if the only available training data is on a single website?

LLMs struggle with following instructions when their training set is massive. The idea that they will be able to produce working software from just a language spec and a few examples is delusional. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these tools work. They don't understand anything. They generate patterns based on probabilities and fine tuning. Without massive amounts of data to skew the output towards a potentially correct result they're not much more useful than a lookup table.

▲

Zak a day ago | parent | next [-]

They don't understand anything, but they sure can repeat a pattern.

I'm using Claude Code to work on something involving a declarative UI DSL that wraps a very imperative API. Its first pass at adding a new component required imperative management of that component's state. Without that implementation in context, I told Claude the imperative pattern "sucks" and asked for an improvement just to see how far that would get me.

A human developer familiar with the codebase would easily understand the problem and add some basic state management to the DSL's support for that component. I won't pretend Claude understood, but it matched the pattern and generated the result I wanted.

This does suggest to me that a language spec and a handful of samples is enough to get it to produce useful results.

▲

dmd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It's wild to me the disconnect between people who actually use these tools every day and people who don't.

I have done exactly the above with great success. I work with a weird proprietary esolang sometimes that I like, and the only documentation - or code - that exists for it is on my computer. I load that documentation in, and it works just fine and writes pretty decent code in my esolang.

"But that can't possibly work [based on my misunderstanding of how LLMs work]!" you say.

Well, it does, so clearly you misunderstand how they work.

▲

ModernMech 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The reason it works so well is that everyone’s “personal unique language” really isn’t all that different from what’s been proposed before, and any semantic differences are probably not novel. If you make your language C + transactional memory, the LLM probably has enough information about both to reason about your code without having to be trained on a billion lines.

Probably if you’re trying to be esoteric and arcane then yeah, you might have trouble, but that’s not normally how languages evolve.

▲

dmd 21 hours ago | parent [-]

No, mine's a esoteric declarative data description/transform language. It's pretty damn weird.

▲

wizzwizz4 20 hours ago | parent [-]

You may underestimate the weirdness of existing declarative data transformation languages. On a scale of 1 to 10, XSLT is about a 2 or 3.

▲

dmd 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Mine's a weird, bad copy of Ab Initio's DML. https://www.google.com/search?q=ab+initio+dml+language

	▲	ModernMech 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		When you say "weird" you mean "different from mainstream languages", but the exact way in which your language is weird (declarative data description/transformation) is probably exactly where languages will be going in the future because of how well-suited they are for LLM reading and writing. Those languages expose the structure of the computation directly such as data shapes and the relationships that transform them, rather than burying intent inside control flow. With more explicit types and dataflow information, the model doesn't need to simulate execution (something LLMs are particularly bad at) as much as recognize and extend a transformation graph (something LLMs are particularly good at). So it's probably just that your particularly weird language is particularly well-adapted to LLM technology.

▲

imiric 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My comment is based precisely on using these tools frequently, if not daily, so what's wild is you assuming I don't.

The impact that lack of training data has on the quality of the results is easily observable. Try getting them to maintain a Python codebase vs. e.g. an Elixir one. Not just generate short snippets of code, but actually assist in maintaining it. You'll constantly run into basic issues like invalid syntax, missing references, use of nonexistent APIs, etc., not to mention more functional problems like dead, useless, or unnecessarily complicated code. I run into these things with mainstream languages (Go, Python, Clojure), so I don't see how an esolang could possibly fair any better.

But then again, the definitions of "just fine" and "decent" are subjective, and these tools are inherently unreliable, which is where I suspect the large disconnect in our experiences comes from.