[My_Name]

Because he did it in a day, not a few weeks.

If I want to go from Bristol to Swindon, I could walk there in about 12 hours. It's totally possible to do it by foot. Or I could use a car and be there in an hour. There and back, with a full work day in-between done, in a day. Using the tool doesn't change what you can do, it speeds up getting the end result.

[bgwalter]

There is no end result. It's a toy language based on a couple of examples without a grammar where apparently the LLM used its standard (plagiarized) parser/lexer code and reiterated until the examples passed.

Automating one of the fun parts of CS is just weird.

So with this awesome "productivity" we now can have 10,000 new toy languages per day on GitHub instead of just 100?

[TeodorDyakov]

That was exactly my thought. Why automate the coding part to create something that will be used for coding (and in itself can be automated , going buy the same logic)? This makes zero sense.

[andsoitis]

If you could also automate away the reason for being in Swindon in the first place, would you still go?

[thunky]

The only reason for going to Swindon was to walk there?

If so then of course you still should go.

But the point making of a computer program usually isn't for "the walk".

[lionkor]

Yes, and the result is undoubtably trash. I have yet to see a single vibe-coded app or reasonably large/complex snippet which isn't either 1) almost an exact reproduction of a popular library, tutorial, etc. or 2) complete and utter trash.

So my question was, given that this is not a very hard thing to build properly, why not properly.

[simonw]

The choice with this kind of question is almost never between "do it properly or do it faster with LLMs".

It's between "do it with LLMs or don't do it at all" - because most people don't have the time to take on an ambitious project like implementing a new programming language just for fun.