Sure, but without further context, “frontend” means the web. And “frontend language” means languages that were designed for the frontend. You can write a website fromtend in Python, but you absolutely shouldn’t!
You can use languages like Java and Rust too which are more reasonable options, but they aren’t “frontend languages”.
Interesting, but the colours for exceptions are inverted. One of the features that Elm touts on its front page is that it doesn’t have exceptions.
Structural equality is also debatable.
That’s nitpicking. It is statically typed. Is Dart not statically typed because it has dynamic.
You could call it “gradually typed” if you want to be pedantic.
can be circumvented pretty easily
That means it isn’t sound.
Languages well suited for client side web code. Most of these (maybe all?) compile to JavaScript and are designed for the web.
Oh you mean when I said this?
I expect it helps people of all experience levels fairly equally, but only with tasks that are relatively simple.
No I don’t have actual data, just direct personal experience of asking AI to do simple and complex tasks - it does much better on simple tasks, especially in very widely discussed domains (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Python etc.) Ask it any SystemVerilog stuff and it gets it wrong almost every time annoyingly!
What do you mean? I’ve seen people say that all the time on HN. No I’m not going to go and search for comments.
Yeah there are pros and cons. Desktop apps are not sandboxed. Mobile apps are often missing features and are annoying to install. Websites often have poor performance or janky UX on mobile, and you need to be online, and you don’t have control of their availability.
I think the best option depends on what the thing is - ordering food from a random pub? Web site. Video editing? App.
Proper reasoning is always needed if you want a guarantee.
You formally verify your regexes? Doubtful.
Does that imply anything at all in LLMs’ favour?
Yes it suggest lower cognitive load.
Ok I can see you haven’t actually come across any complex regexes yet…
(Which is probably a good thing tbh - if you’re writing complex regexes you’re doing it wrong.)
This is stupid pedantry. By that logic literally nothing is complex because everything is made up of simple parts.
Damn there are so many AI critics who have clearly not seriously tried it. It’s like the smartphone naysayers of 2007 but much much worse.
You don’t have to. You can read it.
Regexes aren’t hard to write, their logic is quite simple.
He did say complex regex. A complex regex is not simple.
Why? That is a great use for AI. I’m guessing you are imagining that people are just blindly asking for unit tests and not even reading the results? Obviously don’t do that.
I don’t think that’s true. In fact most people say the opposite - AI doesn’t help junior devs because they can’t recognise when it’s bullshitting. I don’t really believe that either - that’s just ego talking. I expect it helps people of all experience levels fairly equally, but only with tasks that are relatively simple. It’s not like senior engineers never do those though.
It definitely is… But it’s possible to be the most rigorous study and also not really prove anything. Proving this sort of stuff is ridiculously hard and expensive. We don’t have proofs for even the most obvious things in programming, like that comments and good variable naming help comprehension. Sometimes studies even find the opposite.
Google tried to do that with Dart, and failed. In fairness Dart 1 was much worse than Dart 2… So maybe that was a good thing because there’s no way they’d have been able to improve Dart as much as they have if it was part of the web.
For dates there finally is something better anyway: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Temporal
Ha this is even worse than I could have imagined!
Green is good and red is bad. If that wasn’t the intent they should have used different colours.