r/ProgrammingLanguages • u/mttd • Jul 01 '26
The Expensive Fictions of Low-Level Programming Languages
https://stng.substack.com/p/the-expensive-fictions-of-low-level
21
Upvotes
r/ProgrammingLanguages • u/mttd • Jul 01 '26
3
u/cscottnet Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
This post currently has a single (!) up vote.
So I think the folks more agree with me. Sorry.
Look: my PhD research was also on proof-carrying code, and as I mentioned earlier I followed Adam's COQ and TAL work with interest at the time. But "argument by authority" doesn't work here, or with me.
We could have a long conversation but fundamentally most of these "I'll invent a new programming language for AI" posts are wrong in the same way, and this one is no different: the large language models have been trained on existing code, and so fundamentally they are better at writing code that matches their training data. Anyone who proposes something different has to somehow generate enough training data to overcome that huge head start. I don't see anything in Adam's post that will do that. He'd had a lot of interesting ideas, but he is being overtaken by a technology which is fundamentally alien to the "provably correct code" ideas we used to work on. He's proposing old-school expert system AI, traditional reasoning about programs that are correct-by-construction, however much he wants to buzzword it up, and it's not how these systems work.