| ▲ | neutronicus a day ago | |||||||
Yeah, I mean this is somewhat compelling, although the old arguments people brought out (macros are obfuscatory) seem to grow more teeth if agents are writing the macros. So I guess the idea is tastemaker humans spend all their time coming up with sweet macros and telling agents to refactor the ever shrinking code base. But even still I think the main argument for S-Expressions (it’s easiest for humans to create DSLs by working on serialized AST) has become weaker. If DSLs are the best way to make a code base readable, you can now have your agent create one with whatever syntax you like! | ||||||||
| ▲ | rgoulter a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> If DSLs are the best way to make a code base readable, you can now have your agent create one with whatever syntax you like! I think these things are going to be true: - For a specific well-defined coding task, an LLM coding agent will be able to execute it quicker than humans, regardless of how it does it. - Codebases which are well organised will be easier for an LLM to manipulate than codebases which are obscure and surprising. I mean.. I think it's plausible that something like "lisp makes DSLs easy, DSLs are a great way to arrange code" is especially true with LLMs; but I'd also think you'd need to know when to use (& when to not use) DSLs to get effective results from this. Whereas, say, you could have the LLM come up with a DSL in a way which is high friction for the LLM to do it ... but, you'd get the result a bit slower, & maybe worse. | ||||||||
| ||||||||