Why are there no good films is a better question. And we know the answer. Hollywood no longer employs based on talent.

Whether you think LLM's in coding are good or bad largely depends on what you think of current software dev practice. He only gets to this towards the end of the article but this is the main source of personal bias.

If you think the shoddy code currently put into production is fine you're likely to view LLM generated code as miraculous.

If you think that we should stop reinventing variations on the same shoddy code over and over - and instead find ways of reusing existing solid code and generally improving quality (this was the promise of Object Orientation back in the nineties which now looks laughable) then you'll think LLM's are a cynical way to speed up the throughput of garbage code while employing fewer crappy programmers.

Fluoride in water wouldn't be necessary is sugary drinks were taxed heavily (or just banned altogether) and dental care was affordable. But obviously that's considered communism if you're a typical american.

Or you could just put fluoride in the sugary drinks.

She's a scientist. Most of the people on here are writing software which is essentially reinventing the wheel over and over. Of course you have a different experience of LLMs.

"Reinventing the wheel over and over" has been a trillion dollar business. Maybe it won't be for long.

Is that "bullish on LLMs" or not?

this is exactly my experience

The upcoming AI crash is gonna be seriously big

But anything that survives the crash will be the next Google.

please provide context when making statements, thats a better way to communicate your ideas. what, when, why, how, where - so a reader takes your map, and can relate to the territory.

So nobody would use code written in common lisp... but they will use code written in an entirely new language.... right...

I love Common Lisp, but I would definitely think twice before implementing anything I want other people to use on their machines in it. A tiny C executable is pretty nimble in comparison to anything you'll get out of Common Lisp.

I understand, it isn't that bad though: a web app of mine with dozens of dependencies and all templates and static assets is 35MB with SBCL and core compression (that includes the compiler and debugger, useful to connect to a running app and exploring its state (or even hot reloading code)). I suppose that's in the ballpark of a growing Go application. LispWorks has a tree shaker that builds a hello world in 5MB.

Eh, you can just distribute a .lisp file as though it were a ruby or perl script. CL is faster than the usual scripting languages, but admittedly not as fast as C or Rust.

'Just' is overdoing it a tiny bit :)

Assuming everyone has a CL installed is going to limit the audience pretty drastically.

And what about dependencies? Assume they have quicklisp installed as well?

Like I said, I love Common Lisp, but every language is some kind of compromise.

It's a modern disease to seek "success" rather than mastery of a craft for it's own sake. one can lead to the other but not vice versa.