Viewing profile — abreslav

> * model transforms text into a formal specification formal specification is no different from code: it will have bugs :) There's no free lunch here: the informal-to-formal transi…

When you translate spec to tests (if those are traditional unit tests or any automated tests that call the rest of the code), that fixes the API of the code, i.e. the code gets des…

Very much agree on coverage. We're actually doing something in that area: https://codespeak.dev/blog/coverage-20260302 For now, it's only about test coverage of the code, but the s…

Very much agree. I like the imperative vs declarative angle you take here. Thank you!

We'd love to hear your feedback! Feel free to come to our discord to ask questions/share experience: https://l.codespeak.dev/discord

There are different kinds of tests: * regression tests – can be generated * conformance tests – often can be generated * acceptance tests – are another form of specification and sh…

Two things to mention here: 1. You are right that we can redefine what is code. If code is the central artefact that humans are dealing with to tell machines and other humans how t…

We are not trying to make things easier for LLMs. LLMs will be fine. CodeSpeak is built for humans, because we benefit from some structure, knowing how to express what we want, etc…

> Also it seems that the tool severely limits the configurability of the agentic generation process, although that's just a limitation of the specific tool. Working on that as well…

> The limitation seems to be that you can't modify the code yourself if you want the spec to reflect it Eventually, we'll end up in a world where humans don't need to touch code, b…

I second that :)

Great slides! I hope we'll be able to adopt this style for our introductory materials

Many ideas of this sort are flying around, but we postpone the decision to some time after 1.0