is it that llms write "better" typescript than let's say elixir because it has seen more of it..? or is it that you're relying on something like effect-ts to keep llms from tripping over even small things?
coincidentally, "good code" in popular lang is rarely directly attributed to only that part; and it's also about the underlying principles it tries to follow in the code... another example; is it typescript that's good, or are "types" inherently making things/feedback loops easier to reason about in llms? (only using ts here for all example because it's probably one of the most "trained on" pl)
If it's samey regardless of language, isn't that in contradiction to your original theory? " .. the most important feature for agent performance is the popularity of the language .. "
No, not really. It's a similar flavor of output, but there's less iterations to get a correct result. The training is mostly about reducing error rates on generation.
I don't get how. I'm not interacting with the lisp, and the agents don't really get frustrated with slow compilation times or anything, and are perfectly adept at debugging.
The best that people have said about lisp is that evidence LLMs perform worse with it is weak.
