[armchairhacker]

If an LLM actually does think like a human, humans benefit from good programming languages, why wouldn’t an LLM?

Programming languages allow LLMs to build invariants they can’t enforce themselves (type systems), reduce context window (syntax sugar) and represent abstract models in a way that may improve understanding i.e. increase the likelihood of predicting a correct next token.

Plus, we want to understand LLM output, so it should at least be convertible into a language that’s easy for humans.

EDIT: and actually reading the article, learning a new programming paradigm improves your ability to model even in your head, by noticing some abstract thing fits some programming concept, then manipulating the concept (e.g. translation your data model into the algebraic data type,`(a | b) * (a | c)`, then realizing it’s isomorphic to `a * (b | c)`).

[trinari]

Yep, it helps llms, and the same is true for libraries. Technically neither are necessary. Imagine an llm that's restricted to assembly.