Live data from Hacker News

Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

github.com

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

#91

> The empirical literature shows that models are particularly vulnerable to naming-related errors like choosing misleading names, reusing names incorrectly, and losing track of which name refers to which value. I think Vera might be missing something here. In my experience, LLMs code better the less of a mental model you need, vs the more is in text on the page. Go – very little hidden, everything in text on the page…

[flagged]

Re: Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

#92
I just renamed a dozen variables from short rather poor descriptions to good long ones and replaced array offsets with vars. The code changed from somewhat confusing code into easily readable. I'm usually not a fan of giantCamelCaseVarNames but if I have to map two dozen things to other things in my head my brain starts to lag and the limit of my context window makes me hallucinate.

I do applaud the lang design effort as there are countless routes of accepting Jesus as your savior.

Re: Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

#93
post #44

This is exactly the wrong approach. LLMs are good at writing programming languages they already know, that are well represented in the training data, not at writing programming languages that they have never seen before, so that you have to include the entire programming language manual and lots of example code in every prompt.

This is not my experience. I've been experimenting with something very similar to vera. However my language transpiles into multiple languages (Java, Typescript, Common Lisp, Rust, C++, Python, C# and Swift). The transpiler is written in the language itself (there's a separate bootstrap transpiler written in Common Lisp). But where I'm going is that Claude, at least, is extremely capable at writing decent code in my…

That's simply not true. That's just not the way LLMs work. LLMs are not magic.

LLMs are stateless, they don't "remember" your bespoke programming language manual and examples between completion calls, so you have to repeatedly include all that with each and every completion call, which balloons the number of tokens used, reduces how much useful work you can do with the remaining tokens and attention, and is a costly waste of tokens and electricity and money.

That isn't anywhere near as effective or efficient as using the LLM's pre-existing training on billions of lines of well known programming languages, manuals, tutorials, examples, code bases, stack overflow discussions, books, github repos, pr's, etc.

What is your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims? Have you empirically measured how well it works, or is it just vibes and handwaving?

Re: Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

#95

> The empirical literature shows that models are particularly vulnerable to naming-related errors like choosing misleading names, reusing names incorrectly, and losing track of which name refers to which value. I think Vera might be missing something here. In my experience, LLMs code better the less of a mental model you need, vs the more is in text on the page. Go – very little hidden, everything in text on the page…

"Names cause errors" doesn't automatically imply "removing names makes the program easier to generate or reason about"

Re: Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

#96
post #48

> The empirical literature shows that models are particularly vulnerable to naming-related errors like choosing misleading names, reusing names incorrectly, and losing track of which name refers to which value. I think Vera might be missing something here. In my experience, LLMs code better the less of a mental model you need, vs the more is in text on the page. Go – very little hidden, everything in text on the page…

My Spidey sense was tingling when I saw that, too. An additional issue is how humans are supposed to read the code at all so that they can provide help to the LLM if it’s off track. If the code is only usable by models, the models need to be good enough to deal with binary feedback (“Code doesn’t work.”). The human won’t be able to read the code and steer the model. Given the levels of steering required today, that m…

Even if the target author is an LLM, the accountability still lands on humans eventually

Re: Vera: a programming language designed for machines to write

#100

> The empirical literature shows that models are particularly vulnerable to naming-related errors like choosing misleading names, reusing names incorrectly, and losing track of which name refers to which value. I think Vera might be missing something here. In my experience, LLMs code better the less of a mental model you need, vs the more is in text on the page. Go – very little hidden, everything in text on the page…

The FAQ says shuffled names (renaming a variable 'count' to 'result') make LLM perform poorly. But I never seen any codebase have this kind of lies (except from comments). And LLM writing code almost never do that.

Seems like a weird decision taken from a weird paper that make everything harder for humans AND llms. Variables names give useful context when correctly named.

Post reply on HN