- LLMs are trained on tons of source code, which is arguably a smaller space than natural languages

I don’t have my LLMs generate literate programming. I do ask it to talk about tradeoffs. I have full examples of something that is heavily commented and explained, including links to any schemas or docs. I have gotten good results when I ask an LLM to use that as a template, that not everything in there needs to be used, and it cuts down on hallucinations by quite a bit.

> If there is a need to comment the code all over the place, to me it means that the code is maybe not as good as it should be :-) If good code was enough on its own we would read the source instead of documentation. I believe part of good software is good documentation. The prose of literate source is aimed at documentation, not line-level comments about implementation.

> Natural languages are ambiguous. That's the reason why we created programming languages. So the documentation around the code is generally ambiguous as well. Worse: it's not being executed, so it can get out of date (sometimes in subtle ways). I loathe this take. I have rocked up to codebases where there were specific rules banning comments because of this attitude. Yes comments can lie, yes there are no guards ensuring they stay in lock step with the code they document, but not having them is a thousand times worse - I can always see WHAT code is doing, that's never the problem, the problems is WHY it was done in this manner. I put comments like "This code runs in O(n) because there are only a handful of items ever going to be searched - update it when there are enough items to justify an O(log2 n) search" That tells future developers that the author (me) KNOWS it's not the most effic…

"But translating my prompts to code is not working as well, because my prompts are in natural languages, and hence ambiguous." Not only that, but there's something very annoying and deeply dissatisfying about typing a bunch of text into a thing for which you have no control over how its producing an output, nor can an output be reproduced even if the input is identical. Agreed natural language is very ambiguous and becoming more ambiguous by the day "what exactly does 'vibe' mean?". People spoke in a particular way, say 60 years ago, that left very little room for interpretation of what they meant. The same cannot be said today.

Programming languages are natural and ambiguous too, what does READ mean? you have to look it up to see the types. The power comes from the fact that it's audit-able, but that you don't need to audit it every time you want to write some code. You think you write good code? try to prove it after the compiler gets through with it. Natural languages are richer in ideas, it may be harder to get working code going from a purely natural description to code, than code to code, but you don't gain much from just translating code. One is only limited by your imagination the other already exists, you could just call it as a routine. You only have a SENSE for good code because it's a natural language with conventions and shared meaning. If the goal of programming is to learn to communicate better as humans then we should be fighting ambiguity not running from it. 100 years from now nobody is going t…

> because my prompts are in natural languages, and hence ambiguous. Legalese developed specifically because natural language was too ambiguous. A similar level of specificity for prompting works wonders One of the issues with specifying directions to the computer with code is that you are very narrowly describing how something can be done. But sometimes I don't always know the best 'how', I just know what I know. With natural language prompting the AI can tap into its training knowledge and come up with better ways of doing things. It still needs lots of steering (usually) but a lot of times you can end up with a superior result.

Docs and code work together as mutually error correcting codes. You can’t have the benefits of error detection and correction without redundant information.

Maybe if we had a really terse and unambiguous form of English? Whenever there is ambiguity we insert parentheses and operators to really make it clear what we mean. We can enclose different sentences in brackets to make sure that the scope of a logical condition and so on. Oh wait