> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
because... they don't have as many examples, documentation, textbooks, or public example projects to base generation off of, perhaps. There may be a future where documentation/servers are more formally integrated with LLMs/AI systems in a way that makes up for the relative lack of literature by plugging into a source of information that can be used to generate code/projects.
It's a not-so-ideal situation: how is the marketplace of libraries and languages going to evolve when you're competing against whatever version of Python and $FRAMEWORK that was crawled a long time ago?
That might actually be a benefit as most public code say in C++ is not good code.
If the pool is smaller but from say experienced programmers then the number of errors might be less. I can see that for Ada however most Haskell is probably written by undergraduates just learning it so not a quality code base.
I think Apple researchers published a recent papaer where they had a LLM giving good Swidt code but the original corpus only included one Swift program but the AI model was tuned by experienced Swift programmers to get into a good stae for general use.
I would say yes in that it could help revitalize things a bit. Writing difficult and complicated bindings to C libraries will be much easier now. Also, if you can supply a decent context, LLMs can do some good coding in Ada (just not new or fancy features without examples).
