- Correct by construction: the language makes invalid states or programs hard or impossible to express.
- Statically established: types, proofs, and static analysis establish properties before execution.
- Runtime-enforced: memory management, isolation, capability boundaries, and other runtime enforced properties.
- Empirically validated: program validation through tests, property-based testing, and fuzzing.
---
Along with being familiar, so it's easy to generate, is a huge part of why I'm building Zena: <a href="https://zena-lang.dev/" rel="nofollow">https://zena-lang.dev/
I don't have the AI-first rationale put into the public docs well just yet, but I mention some of it here: <a href="https://zena-lang.dev/guide/why-zena/#familiar-to-humans-and-to-agents" rel="nofollow">https://zena-lang.dev/guide/why-zena/#familiar-to-humans-and...
along with a doc in the repo on this topic: <a href="https://github.com/elematic/zena/blob/main/docs/design/ai-first-language.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/elematic/zena/blob/main/docs/design/ai-fi...
In short, the more deterministic, automated, checks the better. AI can deal with a pedantic language. I intend to add statically verified structured concurrency, units of measure, contracts, and eventually more and more formal methods into the language so it can be a familiar TYpeScript-like base with as many static guarantees as we can fit in.
I also think that fine-grained isolation, which Zena gets via Web Assembly, is critical for limiting the capabilities of generated code and the blast radius of bugs, vulnerabilities, and non-aligned behavior.
I do have an optimistic hope that a language also optimized for humans, readability and simple semantics especially, has value in the future, even when most code is generated. We'll see about that.
> bc agents will naturally be bad at it due to a lack of examples.
Can we please as a community stop parroting these false premises as a basis of every argument against doing anything new? It's plainly obvious to anybody that uses LLMs on a regular basis that it's not true.
Agree, new language will not suitable for LLM because there is not enough documents about it on the internet. LLM should learn the usage of the langauge from documents. Yes, it can use new language but it's not natural as existing(which have a lot of documents) languages.
So my opinion is language is no matter anymore. Just prompting(describe the spec) matters. And there is babo language for this.
<a href="https://github.com/armbox/babo" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/armbox/babo
They should find the limitation of the natural language somehow, and use and distribute babo language will help find how it will works(or not). LLM model eveolves yet, so there is no such a approach, but the speed of evolution is decreased lately. So now is good time to dig into identify the limitation and boundary of the LLM.
spankalee · · focus · HN ↗
---
- Correct by construction: the language makes invalid states or programs hard or impossible to express.
- Statically established: types, proofs, and static analysis establish properties before execution.
- Runtime-enforced: memory management, isolation, capability boundaries, and other runtime enforced properties.
- Empirically validated: program validation through tests, property-based testing, and fuzzing.
---
Along with being familiar, so it's easy to generate, is a huge part of why I'm building Zena: <a href="https://zena-lang.dev/" rel="nofollow">https://zena-lang.dev/
I don't have the AI-first rationale put into the public docs well just yet, but I mention some of it here: <a href="https://zena-lang.dev/guide/why-zena/#familiar-to-humans-and-to-agents" rel="nofollow">https://zena-lang.dev/guide/why-zena/#familiar-to-humans-and...
along with a doc in the repo on this topic: <a href="https://github.com/elematic/zena/blob/main/docs/design/ai-first-language.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/elematic/zena/blob/main/docs/design/ai-fi...
In short, the more deterministic, automated, checks the better. AI can deal with a pedantic language. I intend to add statically verified structured concurrency, units of measure, contracts, and eventually more and more formal methods into the language so it can be a familiar TYpeScript-like base with as many static guarantees as we can fit in.
I also think that fine-grained isolation, which Zena gets via Web Assembly, is critical for limiting the capabilities of generated code and the blast radius of bugs, vulnerabilities, and non-aligned behavior.
I do have an optimistic hope that a language also optimized for humans, readability and simple semantics especially, has value in the future, even when most code is generated. We'll see about that.
demibabs · · focus · HN ↗
Agents will naturally be bad at it due to a lack of examples.
abletonlive · · focus · HN ↗
Can we please as a community stop parroting these false premises as a basis of every argument against doing anything new? It's plainly obvious to anybody that uses LLMs on a regular basis that it's not true.
theqoo · · focus · HN ↗
They should find the limitation of the natural language somehow, and use and distribute babo language will help find how it will works(or not). LLM model eveolves yet, so there is no such a approach, but the speed of evolution is decreased lately. So now is good time to dig into identify the limitation and boundary of the LLM.