[mccoyb]

I'm not sure where or how to convey this, because I've seen several of these languages designed with AI, documentation created using AI, etc -- posted on Hacker News in the last months or so, and I've responded to each one with roughly the same feedback (and I'm assuming good faith: that the intent is that the poster wishes to grow as a language designer).

Your audience, or whoever you aim your work at, should be treated with respect. Otherwise, why should they give you the time of day? Why would you expect them to respond positively to effort alone when effort (in code and in shit prose) is extremely cheap right now? Their time is not cheap ...

When I read the documentation, and it is extremely clear that you haven't taken the time to clarify your ideas, when much of it is LLM prose, when much of the content introduces highfalutin ideas without motivation, blending categorical concepts (which, by the way, should never be mixed with vague prose claims about the language), violating my reader context model, preventing me from understanding what problem exactly your language design is solving (where is that problem stated clearly?), it is a waste of my time.

> The work took 3 weeks in total ... it's worth a look, and I hope it will win some converts, and that someone will want to help me with its development.

You've gone too fast, too much is vague, nothing is clear.

I'd delete everything, start over, and try and explain just one of the ideas clearly. Seriously. This sounds harsh, but it's honestly the correct approach to something as subtle and nuanced as programming language design.

[VoidWarranty]

This reads to me like someone's mania project. I wish OP the best and hope they can get some rest.

[skulk]

> Your audience, or whoever you aim your work at, should be treated with respect.

I just want to amplify this point. As I was reading this, the LLMisms kept jumping out at me and each one felt like the author looking at me and deciding that my time spent reading this prose wasn't actually worth anything to them.

OP: I want YOUR thoughts, not the next token predictions of a gigantic pile of matrix multiplications. I want your awkward sentences, grammar mistakes, half-baked thoughts, self-doubt, silly jokes. I don't want this pile of grandiose mechanical slop completely devoid of humanity.

[solomonb]

Personally I don't want to read the codebase AND book of someone 3 weeks into a mania focused on a subject it is unclear they have any prior experience with. Its disrespectful for someone to think they can produce something worthy of consuming another human's time under those constraints.

[dkersten]

> You've gone too fast, too much is vague, nothing is clear.

Contrast to when Clojure was released: Rich Hickey had spent years thinking about, researching, and refining the concepts. It was easy to understand what the language is. And it shows in the design quality as even now, almost two decades later, the language has changed surprisingly little and is still really good.

[nathan_compton]

I have to second this. I find the AI written documentation extremely loathsome, hard to read, and somehow both pretentious and lazy.

Please, I beg everyone, stop posting AI slop.

[TimorousBestie]

Regrettably, the beatings are going to continue until morale improves.

[danieltanfh95]

This isn’t about whether the writer uses LLM or not at all, nor is it about respect. The core novelty it tries to introduce is not hard to understand (even if it is not really that novel). If you don’t want to spend time thinking about what interesting idea it is exploring, that is fine, but pretending or insinuating that it is a LLM problem is just lazy.

[mccoyb]

Explain away then my friend: surely your clear explanation will benefit many other readers who came away with similar confusion?

[danieltanfh95]

Exploring if it makes sense to use maths (or, to be precise, this particular construction) to drive content addressable content + other exploration around the memory space. IMO, no.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48436337

[Retr0id]

What is the core novelty?

[danieltanfh95]

Exploring if it makes sense to use maths (or, to be precise, this particular construction) to drive content addressable content + other exploration around the memory space. IMO, no.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48436337

[Retr0id]

I have a strong understanding of content addressing, memory allocation, data structures, and a superficial understanding of lattices. It is not clear how one has anything to do with the other. If there is any meaningful link or benefit, it has not been explained.

Perhaps some magical insight is waiting for me if I understand the Leech lattice better, but given PhD category theorists are also scratching their heads I think I'll pass https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48436251

[amenn]

Still writing the docs. Content addressing is the mechanism, that is: same content lands in the same slot, equality is a handle compare. The allocator is provably extensional so distinct content never aliases even though the hash itself can collide. The Leech part: the heap is sized to the lattice's 196,560 minimal vectors, the coordinate-to-slot map is a collision-free perfect hash built from the Conway group's mm_op tables, and that fixed universe is what makes sets into 196,560-bit bitmaps with O(1) membership and bitwise ops.

[Retr0id]

I understand that you can hash any object into a 196,560-slot space (that's how regular hash tables work), but I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. Regular hash tables can be resized when they get full (or less-full), yours cannot. How is this any different from a hash table with a fixed capacity of 196,560 entries?

"provably extensional" is not an established term in this context and communicates nothing about the design. I simply do not believe that this design doesn't have trivial collision issues, or that it makes efficient use of memory.

[jrmg]

Are you saying that two distinct pieces of content can never collide? That seems obviously incorrect.

For example, take the integers 0 - 196,561, and put them into your lattice-based map. Something’s got to give. There are only 196,560 containers in the map (right?)

[GreenSalem]

It is not exploring anything.

It is bluntly stating nonsense, while misunderstating the basics of Leech lattices and the Yoneda lemma.

A 12 year old with a LLM could do better.