So then a programming language designed explicitly for coding languages would need to take human reviews into account, what is the most efficient and concise ways to express programming concepts then?
In the end, we circle back to lisps, once you're used to it, it's as easy for humans to parse as it is for machines to parse it. Shame LLMs struggle with special characters.
Surely lisps don't have drastically more special characters as other languages? A few more parens, sure, but less curly braces, commas, semicolons, etc
Also feels like making sure the tokeniser has distinct tokens for left/right parens would be all that is required to make LLMs work with them
Don't get me wrong, they do work with lisps already, had plenty of success having various LLMs creating and managing Clojure code, so we aren't that far off.
But I'm having way more "unbalanced parenthesis" errors than with Algol-like languages. Not sure if it's because of lack of training data, post-training or just needing special tokens in the tokenizer, but there is a notable difference today.
Yeah, makes sense it sounds like that. But the crux is probably that most of us learned programming via Algol-like languages, like C or PHP, and only after decades of programming did we start looking into lisps.
But don't take my word for it, ask the programmers around you for the ones who've been looking into lisps and ask them how they feel about it.
I don’t think that would be a real issue in practice. Coding LLMs need to be able to cope with complicated expressions in many languages. If they can produce legitimate code for other languages, they can be taught to cope with s-expressions.
In the end, we circle back to lisps, once you're used to it, it's as easy for humans to parse as it is for machines to parse it. Shame LLMs struggle with special characters.