lgrapenthin

Choose any LISP, and the right LISP will choose you.

tldr; they decided to sacrifice quality for quantity via outsourcing their programming, and find Python more suitable for this.

Which it always has been, whether outsourcing to cheap "talent" overseas, or now a subscription service text generator.

Not a day passes with my LLM of choice making completely baseless claims about "many people", who supposedly share all my problems and solve them like the LLM proposes

"Here is the X part", a commonly generated attention catcher these days, combined with an expert level fact, compacted into casual tone. Note it does not state opinion or reports subjective experience, which alltogether makes it a somewhat unfailable "Did you know?" addition. It is easy to mass generate such commentary and you can frequently find it on Twitter, too.

I find it hard to believe that a human would after reading this article make the stated observation, and then write this exact comment.

did you generate this comment?

"As a rule of thumb, if your application never has 10,000 virtual threads or more, it is unlikely to benefit from virtual threads."

https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/core/virtual-threa...

Clojure is about its rigorous and pragmatic "immutability first" paradigm that you simply don't get from other PLs.

LISP is much more than just a runtime syntax, such as its distinct evaluation model and metalinguistic core.

The JVM was chosen for Clojure because of its reach and vast ecosystem. People have ported Clojure to other runtimes, even Beam (Clojerl), where it enjoys decent success, too.

Why does this read like written by AI?

What you are describing is exactly a security implication.

Might be some personal beef, but I don't know really and don't care enough. He makes these authorative claims mixed with personal sentiment and then doesn't back them up.

Here for instance the core team supposedly has "lost control of the compiler" https://x.com/dustingetz/status/1947643515480965346

Work on the compiler had been pushed a month earlier https://github.com/clojure/clojure/commit/6a3e0f02c6a96fcef2...

Of course calling out baseless FUD is helpful. Otherwise it just discourages people from engaging with Clojure, which is not helpful.

There is no falling apart. This guy just tries to spread this narrative every two months or so, idky. Check out latest dev call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngyvDkZA3o0

Indeed. Generated code is also harder to read because it violates all semantic expectations that rely on the mental model of a human author. A generated piece of code is linguistically plausible but often unknowingly imitates common idioms so incoherently that the actual bug may be accidentally disguised in a way no sane human (even a bad programmer) could have come up with.

Since LLMs have no internal evaluation, as a reviewer one has to account for it and evaluate line by line, rebuild from scratch any hidden rationale and tacit knowledge the LLM didn't have in the first place - only to be mislead into non concerns draining costly hours.

At this point, the investment is often deeper than writing from scratch.

In Clojure

    true: true
    false: false
    null: nil
    []: []
    {}: {}

They are just trying to peddle their "It's alive" headlines.

Text generators mostly generate the text their are trained and asked to generate, and asking it to run a vending machine, having it write blog posts under fictional living computer identity, or now calling it "Mythos" - its all just marketing.

Assuming that everybody disagreeing with such takes simply can't have tried the latest generator is quite telling. Consider, that maybe, I'm not as easily impressed?

My hammer is also solving problems. Still, hammering is not programming. LLMs are text generators.

You are comparing a PL to a text generator. What are you on?

The negativity is driven by outrageous claims how AIs will replace programmers, or how english is the PL of the future. T

Its generating an approximation of what it was trained on. Call it whatever you want, just not AGI or the road to AGI.

How brave of you

There is a newer version here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sogomonian-aiip-archi...

I don't understand what problem this is trying to solve though.

I tried this on a small Clojure codebase and asked it to write some tests. It couldn't get its parentheses balanced. After 10 attempts or so it tried to write a smaller test file first, but again failed. Regardless of the parentheses, the test code it came up with was quite basic and arbitrary. It didn't try to come up with interesting edge cases or anything.

To me, it was never about the hardware. It was not even about LISP. It is about "clean design" and what a great computing environment was capable of, and still would be, had its potential not been shredded by the advent of cheap addicting hardware combined with an "operating system" so "simple and elegant" that even today, a program simply segfaults leaving you with nothing (instead of showing at least an inspectable stacktrace). So "simple and elegant" that the only two data formats end users are dealing with are "copy & paste text", "files", and "screenshots". An operating system so "pure" that every program lives in its own uninteroperable walled garden, that understands nothing about the environment and data loaded around it. We lost a whole computing world and it might still take ages getting that back.

A transducer transforms a reducing function. Its signature is rfn->rfn. The resulting rfn can then be used to reduce/fold from any collection/stream type into any other collection/stream type.

I don't see what your functions have to do with that.

Maybe not "elegant", but quite readable compiler impl. compared to what I have seen. And which (real world) compiler has an "elegant" implementation anyways.

Those are not fully featured web frameworks, I guess they were just labeled by AI for this website. They are libraries specialized on one thing.

Most problems solved by frameworks don't exist in Clojure. Most problems introduced by frameworks, therefore, don't exist in Clojure as well.

No. Those have unbounded message queues.

If search was only about finding existing texts, LLMs would be qualitatively worse, as they frequently misquote or even invent non existing sources.

Sorry, these claims are just not true. AI generations in these categories are impressive on release, but blatantly generic, recognizable, predictable and boring after I have seen about 100 or so. Also, if you want to put them to use to replace "real work" outside of the ordinary/pretrained, you hit limitations quickly.

The scaling laws of the Internet were clear from the start.