I'm not trying to be reductive but the article's a lot of words for "We're vibecoding our app now and the glorious (almost almighty) Haskell compiler is too slow for the agent to iterate it's mistakes until it gets it right."

▲

weinzierl 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This thought completely neglects the idea that Haskell probably needs significantly less compiler runs because every run catches more errors and gives more information about them.

And that is not even considering how often the agent needs to run tests to get it right.

	▲	derdi 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It seems pretty clear that they do only minimal live testing during the "open a ticket, implement something, deploy it in production, all while the customer is still on the call" cycles. So your second concern is probably not relevant in this particular setting. Regarding the first, I think you're probably right, but then again, if there is a 15-minute base cost, it's hard to amortize that through fewer incremental runs of the compiler. (Which isn't to say that I think they are doing the right thing.)
	▲	aviaviavi 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The number of compiler runs doesn't matter as much as the total elapsed time it takes to finish the task. In just about every test we ran, LLMs are faster at building in Python than Haskell.

▲

marcosdumay 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mixed with some complaints on how the community doesn't like vibe-coding, and that if you insist on not letting AI think for you, you will be left to die in the dust of the other competitors.

The amount of certainty random people have that LLMs have already revolutionized software development seems to be directly proportional to the media awareness of the AI companies finance unsustainability.

▲

whateveracct an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Haskell Foundation member mind got cursed by wearing the CEO hat and he forgot to "avoid (success at all costs)" kek

▲

jimbokun 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe overly verbose but makes an important point.

Slow compile times should have been a deal breaker for how they impacted human coders. LLM coding just makes the problem more stark.