Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A sufficiently detailed spec is code

haskellforall.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 376 posts

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#11

Post by notepad0x90 »

gizmo686 wrote: post #9
notepad0x90 wrote: post #3

I agree to this, with the caveat that a standard is not a spec. E.g.: The C or C++ standards, they're somewhat detailed, but even if they were to be a lot more detailed, becoming 'code' would defeat the purpose (if 'code' means a deterministic turing machine?), because it won't allow for logic that is dependent on the implementer ("implementation defined behavior" and "undefined behavior" in C parlance). whereas a sp…

Even programs are just specifications by that standard. When you write a program in C, you are describing what an abstract C machine can do. When the C compiler turns that into a program it is free to do so in any way that is consistent with the abstract C machine. If you look at what implementions modern compilers actually come up with, they often look quite different from what you would expect from the source code

I don't disagree, so in a way, compilers are the specification that implement the standard? That doesn't feel right though.

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#12

Post by nomel »

rdevilla wrote: post #7

I think it's only a matter of time before people start trying to optimize model performance and token usage by creating their own more technical dialect of English (LLMSpeak or something). It will reduce both ambiguity and token usage by using a highly compressed vocabulary, where very precise concepts are packed into single words (monads are just monoids in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?). Grammat…

Let's use a non-ambiguous language for this. May I suggest Lojban [1][2]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

[2] Someone speaking it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxQjwbUiM9w

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#13

Post by [deleted] »

nomel wrote: post #12
rdevilla wrote: post #7

I think it's only a matter of time before people start trying to optimize model performance and token usage by creating their own more technical dialect of English (LLMSpeak or something). It will reduce both ambiguity and token usage by using a highly compressed vocabulary, where very precise concepts are packed into single words (monads are just monoids in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?). Grammat…

Let's use a non-ambiguous language for this. May I suggest Lojban [1][2]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban [2] Someone speaking it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxQjwbUiM9w

[deleted]

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#14

Post by skydhash »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #11
gizmo686 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even programs are just specifications by that standard. When you write a program in C, you are describing what an abstract C machine can do. When the C compiler turns that into a program it is free to do so in any way that is consistent with the abstract C machine. If you look at what implementions modern compilers actually come up with, they often look quite different from what you would expect from the source code

I don't disagree, so in a way, compilers are the specification that implement the standard? That doesn't feel right though.

Compilers are converters. There’s the abstract machine specified by the standard and there’s the real machine where the program will run (and there can be some layer in between). So compilers takes your program (which assumes the abstract machine) and builds the link between the abstract and the real.

If your program was a DSL for steering, the abstract machine will be the idea of steering wheel, while the machine could be a car without one. So a compiler would build the steering wheel, optionally adding power steering (optimization), and then tack the apparatus to steer for the given route.

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#16

Post by abcde666777 »

charcircuit wrote: post #6

This articles ignores that AI agents have intelligence which means that they can figure out unspecified parts of the spec on their own. There is a lot of the design of software that I don't care about and I'm fine letting AI pick a reasonable approach.

These algorithms don't have intelligence, they just regurgitate human intelligence that was in their training data. That also goes the other way - they can't produce intelligence that wasn't represented in their training input.

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#17

Post by TheRoque »

charcircuit wrote: post #6

This articles ignores that AI agents have intelligence which means that they can figure out unspecified parts of the spec on their own. There is a lot of the design of software that I don't care about and I'm fine letting AI pick a reasonable approach.

Exactly, I find that type of article too dismissive. Like, we know we don't have to write the full syntax of a loop when we write the spec "find the object in the list", and we might even not write this spec because that part is obvious to any human (hence to an LLM too)

Re: A sufficiently detailed spec is code

#18

Post by [deleted] »

rdevilla wrote: post #7

I think it's only a matter of time before people start trying to optimize model performance and token usage by creating their own more technical dialect of English (LLMSpeak or something). It will reduce both ambiguity and token usage by using a highly compressed vocabulary, where very precise concepts are packed into single words (monads are just monoids in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?). Grammat…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN