Simon Peyton Jones

So a zillion iterations get done behind the scenes.

Whereas in an untyped language, the first one it coughed up, you'd have had to run or run against a test suite or who knows what, but it drastically tightens up that cycle.

So I think that statically typed languages are a huge boon for LLMs because it's too easy.

Programs are just strings, right?

They could just generate the next plausible word, and you want to make any implausible programs, programs that really shouldn't run, you want to make them not run right away.

ASCII is exploring the bleeding edge.

There is an exception, which is that module systems are a...

and in particular sort of functor-style module systems, are explored much more deeply in the ML OCaml world.

And in the Haskell world, we've essentially never gone there.

But otherwise, I think Haskell's right up there.

Now, of course, a language like Scala...

is also, so Scala has almost everything ASCLE has, I think not quite, but it also has subtyping and object orientation.

So that's a lot more complicated, a lot more complicated, I think.

And they pay a price for it.

I think Martin Odeski would agree that they pay a price for it.

So in complexity, it's probably more complicated than ASCLE's.

And maybe in terms of power.

So maybe I should have said Haskell and Scala are the two leading.

Haskell, Scala, O'Camel.

Perhaps I'll just put them in an equivalence class for now.