this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
34 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

34891 readers
773 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've found coding assistance to be pretty lacklustre myself as well. That said, one area where language models might actually be good is emulating a type system for dynamic languages. Given how good these things are at figuring out general shape of the code, I suspect they could fairly accurately tell you argument and return types for functions. And you could probably get away with a pretty small model if it only targets a specific language.

[–] Kache@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dedicated incremental static type checkers for dynamic languages already exist. In particular, Pyright for Python is fantastic and in many ways surpasses the type systems of classic typed languages

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not too familiar with tooling for Python, but my experience is that you get fairly limited support in dynamic languages unless you start adding hints. Ultimately, a static type checker can't resolve information that's not there.