[ElatedOwl]

I agree that LLMs capabilities with a language are going to be extremely relevant. Community, API consistency, and whatever other factors that are going to increase LLM usefulness will decide the popularity of languages in the coming years.

I’m not sold on the importance of static typing though. I’ve had great results with Ruby and Python with 4o, o1, and to a limited degree Copilot.

One of the biggest benefits of Ruby is how simple testing is. The language is so dynamic that mocking/stubbing and intercepting or whatever is dead simple stupid.

So the “static types prevent you using LLM hallucinations” does not hold for me. I’m going to write tests covering the method (which the LLM will probably help with), and I’m going to get an undefined method error.

[jokethrowaway]

It's very evident this is the case if you generate similar JavaScript or TypeScript.

The types mismatching can really help you spot mistakes early on instead of at runtime, plus with the LLM generating trivial boring types is very straightforward.

The same effect is visible in Rust too and you'll quickly catch APIs that don't exist or that are being used incorrectly - albeit LLM understanding of Rust is really bad compared to other mainstream languages