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

Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#181

Post by willquack »

jkh99 wrote: post #70

Thanks for all of the comments! Quick reaction: 1. Nanolang is a total thought experiment. The key word its description is "experimental" - whether it's a Good experiment or a Bad experiment can be argued either way, especially by language purists! 2. Yes, it's a total Decorator Crab of a language. An unholy creation by Dr Frankenstein, yes! Those criticisms are entirely merited. It wasn't designed, it accreted featu…

There's nothing more fun than making a DSL, the only annoying part if finding an excuse to make one

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#182

Post by nl »

measurablefunc wrote: post #178
nl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post RL you won't need to put the grammar in the prompt anymore.

The grammar of this language is no more than a few hundred tokens (thousands at worst) & current LLMs support context windows in the millions of tokens.

Sure.

The point is that your statement about the ability to do RL is wrong.

Additionally your response to the Deepseek paper in the other subthread shows profound and deliberate ignorance.

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#183

Post by pizzafeelsright »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #25

At this point, I am starting to feel like we don’t need new languages, but new ways to create specifications. I have a hypothesis that an LLM can act as a pseudocode to code translator, where the pseudocode can tolerate a mixture of code-like and natural language specification. The benefit being that it formalizes the human as the specifier (which must be done anyway) and the llm as the code writer. This also might e…

Language is not the problem but clear intent along with direction of action and defined and not implied subject.

Consider:

"Eat grandma if you're hungry"

"Eat grandma, if you're hungry"

"Eat grandma. if you're hungry"

Same words and entirely different outcome.

Pseudo code to clarify:

[Action | Directive - Eat] [Subject - Grandma] [Conditional of Subject - if hungry]

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#184

Post by [deleted] »

pizzafeelsright wrote: post #183
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #25

At this point, I am starting to feel like we don’t need new languages, but new ways to create specifications. I have a hypothesis that an LLM can act as a pseudocode to code translator, where the pseudocode can tolerate a mixture of code-like and natural language specification. The benefit being that it formalizes the human as the specifier (which must be done anyway) and the llm as the code writer. This also might e…

Language is not the problem but clear intent along with direction of action and defined and not implied subject. Consider: "Eat grandma if you're hungry" "Eat grandma, if you're hungry" "Eat grandma. if you're hungry" Same words and entirely different outcome. Pseudo code to clarify: [Action | Directive - Eat] [Subject - Grandma] [Conditional of Subject - if hungry]

[deleted]

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#185

Post by derrida »

empath75 wrote: post #145
jmward01 wrote: post #20

Just scanning through this, looks interesting and is totally needed, but I think it is missing showing future use-cases and discussions of decoding. So, for instance, it is all well and good to define a simple language focused on testing and the like, but what about live LLM control and interaction via a programming language? Sort of a conversation in code? Data streams in and function calls stream out with syntax de…

I think the real gap in computer languages wrt LLMs is a replacement for python as a "notebook" language that the LLM uses to solve ad hoc problems during a chat. What you want is something that is safe, performant, uses minimal tokens and takes careful note of effects and capabilities. Tests aren't really even important for that use case.

> I think the real gap in computer languages wrt LLMs is a replacement for python as a "notebook" language that the LLM uses to solve ad hoc problems during a chat.

hey I found this project december 23 and you just commented on another thing I posted "amazing one shot that" I will give you an invite if you want (because it also does that) check bio will add contact dets now...

it was posted to this site earlier about 20 days ago and front paged and hilariously about half the comments were shooting it down the top voted comment was even "this is the worst website ever" lol xD and they since invite only to manage abuse (its a very capable service and currently free)

It's capable of what you just mentioned, and it made the other site that one-shot you said was amazing for the one shot (literally cut and paste the comment into the prompt, then 2nd was "Good, now do it better")

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#186

Post by measurablefunc »

nl wrote: post #182
measurablefunc wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grammar of this language is no more than a few hundred tokens (thousands at worst) & current LLMs support context windows in the millions of tokens.

Sure. The point is that your statement about the ability to do RL is wrong. Additionally your response to the Deepseek paper in the other subthread shows profound and deliberate ignorance.

Theorycrafting is very easy. Not a single person in this thread has shown any code to do what they're suggesting. You have access to the best models & yet you still haven't managed to prompt it to give you the code to prove your point so spare me any further theoretical responses. Either show the code to do exactly what you're saying is possible or admit you lack the relevant understanding to back up your claims.

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#187

Post by nxobject »

nl wrote: post #72
Zigurd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just how well the language is represented. Obscure-ish APIs can trip up LLMs. I've been using Antigravity for a Flutter project that uses ATProto. Gemini is very strong at Dart coding, which makes picking up my 17th managed language a breeze. It's also very good at Flutter UI elements. It was noticeably less good at ATProto and its Dart API. The characteristics of failures have been interesting: As I anticip…

I have a vibe coded fantasy console. Getting Doom running on it was easy. Getting the Doom sound working on it involved me setting there typing "No I can't hear anything" over and over until it magically worked... Maybe I should have written a helper program to listen using the microphone or something.

I was reading an Ars article by someone who'd hacked up Apple II and Atari 2600 emulators to provide state introspection/reproducible input via MCP, sockets, file I/O - would that work?

https://github.com/benj-edwards/atari800-ai https://github.com/benj-edwards/bobbin

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#188

Post by gritzko »

embedding-shape wrote: post #168
gritzko wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am working on that https://github.com/gritzko/librdx Conflictless merge and overlay branches (ie freely attachable/detachable by a click). That was the pie-in-the-sky of the CRDT community for maybe 15 years. My current approach is RDX tree CRDT effectively mapping to the AST tree of the program. Like CRDT DOM for the AST, because line based diffs are too clumsy for that. Back in the day, JetBrains tried revision-c…

Just a clarifying question to understand if I understand librdx correctly, it seems you've implemented a language explicitly for being easy to be used as CRDTs for syncing purposes (with specific types/structures for communicating just changes too?), rather than taking an existing language and then layering that stuff on top?

It depends on what you mean by a language. If JSON then yes. There are ways to implement CRDT by layering on top of JSON (see Automerge) but the result is really far from idiomatic readable JSON people expect to see.

RDX is more like CRDT JSON DOM in fact, not just JSON+. If that makes sense.

Re: Nanolang: A tiny experimental language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

#190

Post by catlifeonmars »

verdverm wrote: post #160
catlifeonmars wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it sounds like an artificial limitation.

it's more a mathematical / algorithmic limitation

I’ll counter it’s an architectural issue
Post reply on HN