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

Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

codespeak.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 304 posts

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#261

Post by sutterd »

issamG wrote: post #171
sutterd wrote: post #123

I am trying a similar spec driven development idea in a project I am working on. One big difference is that my specifications are not formalized that much. Tney are in plain language and are read directly by the LLM to convert to code. That seems like the kind of thing the LLM is good at. One other feature of this is that it allows me to nudge the implmentation a little with text in the spec outside of the formal req…

Do you save these "prompts" so you can improve, and in turn improve the code. to me Spec Driven Development is more than a spec to generate code, structured or not.

The spec contains formal, numbered items which are requirements and also serve to make tests (these are spec tests, additional implementation tests are also allowed by the implementer). When I said "they are not formalized as much", I mean I am not as strict on the spec format as CodeSpeak is, where their spec can be parsed with a tool. For me it is up to the LLM to use the spec itself. I have additional text beyond the requirement items which also influences how the LLM implements the code. I did this because it is too tough, for me at least, to prompt the LLM just based on strict requirements. This is perhaps cheating according to what you might call SDD. I'm just trying to be practical. The idea in the end is that this spec implies the code and maintaining the spec is the same as maintaining the code. Strictly speaking this won't be true, but I am hoping it still works anyway.

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#263

Post by ekropotin »

stephbook wrote: post #221

> It’s one of those things that crackpots keep trying to do, no matter how much you tell them it could never work. If the spec defines precisely what a program will do, with enough detail that it can be used to generate the program itself, this just begs the question: how do you write the spec? Such a complete spec is just as hard to write as the underlying computer program, because just as many details have to be an…

I’m actually start seeking at work how people are writing skills in a very procedural manner. Something like:

First, collect the following information from user: …. Second, send http request to the following endpoint with the certain payload…. If server returned error - report back to user.

It makes me crack every time I see that kind of stuff. Why on Earth you won’t just write a script for that purpose? 10x faster, zero tokens burned, 100% deterministic.

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#264

Post by ncr100 »

From an inclusivity perspective, can more people than "programmers" be enlisted to write specs?

We are putting people out of work. Why not employ MORE people to do LESS, by sharing the responsibility? A group activity, perhaps?

Eg make room in this spec > program development workflow for, say, ... Tech Writers. Add them to the development team to ensure the language is right for the LLM ahead of time!

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#265

Post by pjmlp »

kennywinker wrote: post #228
pjmlp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet the people voting with their wallets seem to go with cheaper option, regardless of what hides behind it. Being shoes, offshoring, Webwidgets or AI generated code.

Sure. People go for the cheapest option that fits their requirements, mostly. But we’re the shoemakers, not the consumers. It’s actually our job to preserve our own and our peers quality of life. Cheapest good option possible doesn’t have to be the sweatshop - tho the shareholders of nike or zara would have you believe that - the labor movements of the 19th century proved that’s not the case.

It is our job to keep our job, or leave if we don't agree with management, assuming to be lucky when there is an option to walk out and start anew right on the other side of the street.

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#266

Post by reverius42 »

discreteevent wrote: post #243
CamperBob2 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS a compiler. You might as well ask if the machine-language output of a C compiler is as detailed as the C code was. To anticipate your objection: you can get over determinism now, or you can get over it later. You will get over it, though, if you intend to stay in this business.

> It IS a compiler. What are you talking about? If an LLM is a compiler, then I'm a compiler. Are we going to redefine the meaning of words in order not to upset the LLM makers?

Originally, the word "computer" referred to a human being. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

Over time, when digital computers became commonplace, the computing moved from the person to the machine. At this time, arguably the humans doing the programming of the machine were doing the work we now ask of a "compiler".

So yes, an LLM can be a compiler in some sense (from a high level abstract language into a programming language), and you too can be a compiler! But currently it's probably a good use of the LLM's time and probably not a good use of yours.

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#267

Post by KingMob »

ekropotin wrote: post #263
stephbook wrote: post #221

> It’s one of those things that crackpots keep trying to do, no matter how much you tell them it could never work. If the spec defines precisely what a program will do, with enough detail that it can be used to generate the program itself, this just begs the question: how do you write the spec? Such a complete spec is just as hard to write as the underlying computer program, because just as many details have to be an…

I’m actually start seeking at work how people are writing skills in a very procedural manner. Something like: First, collect the following information from user: …. Second, send http request to the following endpoint with the certain payload…. If server returned error - report back to user. It makes me crack every time I see that kind of stuff. Why on Earth you won’t just write a script for that purpose? 10x faster,…

> Why on Earth you won’t just write a script for that purpose?

- Because your bash-fu may not be good enough

- Because parts of the process may not be amenable to scripting, especially if they require LLMs

- Because the inputs to some steps are fuzzy enough that only an LLM can handle them

- etc...

That being said, yes, anything amenable to being turned into scripts should be.

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#268

Post by prohobo »

sethev wrote: post #226
stephbook wrote: post #221

> It’s one of those things that crackpots keep trying to do, no matter how much you tell them it could never work. If the spec defines precisely what a program will do, with enough detail that it can be used to generate the program itself, this just begs the question: how do you write the spec? Such a complete spec is just as hard to write as the underlying computer program, because just as many details have to be an…

Program generation from a spec meant something vastly different in 2007 than it does now. People can and are generating programs from underspecified prompts. Trying to be systematic about how prompts work is a worthwhile area to explore.

So is that what CodeSpeak does? It formalizes the vocab/structure of prompts?

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#269

Post by xigoi »

James_K wrote: post #239
stephbook wrote: post #221

> It’s one of those things that crackpots keep trying to do, no matter how much you tell them it could never work. If the spec defines precisely what a program will do, with enough detail that it can be used to generate the program itself, this just begs the question: how do you write the spec? Such a complete spec is just as hard to write as the underlying computer program, because just as many details have to be an…

import Mathlib def Goldbach := ∀ x : ℕ, Even x → x > 2 → ∃ (y z: ℕ), Nat.Prime y ∧ Nat.Prime z ∧ x = y + z A short specification for the proof of the Goldbach conjecture in Lean. Much harder to implement though. Implementation details are always hidden by the interface, which makes it easier to specify than produce. The Curry-Howard correspondence means that Joel's position here is that any question is as hard to ask…

This argument is based on the notion of proof irrelevance – if a theorem is true, any proof is as good as any other. This is not the case for computer programs – two programs that implement the same specification may be very different in terms of performance, size, UI/UX, code maintainability, etc.

Re: Kotlin creator's new language: talk to LLMs in specs, not English

#270

Post by xigoi »

bitwize wrote: post #257
stephbook wrote: post #221

> It’s one of those things that crackpots keep trying to do, no matter how much you tell them it could never work. If the spec defines precisely what a program will do, with enough detail that it can be used to generate the program itself, this just begs the question: how do you write the spec? Such a complete spec is just as hard to write as the underlying computer program, because just as many details have to be an…

People literally specifying software into existence in 2026 gives this quote a vibe of "aerodynamically speaking, bumblebees cannot fly".

You can only specify software into existence if your idea of what you want it to look like is as vague as your specification. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes not.
Post reply on HN