[Quothling]

It depends. Ah, well I guess it's a litlle unfair to say that because in the context of your question I absolutely didn't mean for it to be taken literally and I should've been more clear. It does depend on domain though. For some of our engineering and control software it is almost meant literally. Since we'd have very few abstractions beyond the language primitives because of explicity.

For what you were asking though, it's not no-abstractions it's YAGNI where business logic lives in "just" functions which operate on plain data structures with runtime assertions and validation. The data structures will usually include domain specific types. There are no classes, object hierachies or architecture abstractions, at least, there almost never ever are. When it absolutely doesn't make sense not to introduce an abstraction beyond what we typically want, then it's allowed. This pains a lot of Uncle Bob's disciples, until it doesn't.

The advantage of it is that we've found that it works really well with LLM's. At least in my experience they seem to be absolutely excellent with explicit, localized code instead of layers of indirection.

[jamiejquinn]

Right, that makes a lot of sense. Seems like reviewers can easily see and check those asserts to understand if the LLM has written something sensible (and I presume those asserts are strongly declared in the prompts).

I'd love to read a blog post or something on what you've discovered on good software patterns for AI. I'm only now getting into using LLMs and beyond the purely technical aspect of what LLM is "best" it seems like there's a wealth of learned experience in how to structure and write code to work well with them.

I've heard good arguments for using Rust with LLMs because the compiler keeps the LLM from making silly mistakes. What languages have you been developing in?