lgrapenthin

Because its all moonshining.

Trying to make gold from pyrite.

Choose any LISP, and the right LISP will choose you.

tldr; they decided to sacrifice quality for quantity via outsourcing their programming, and find Python more suitable for this.

Which it always has been, whether outsourcing to cheap "talent" overseas, or now a subscription service text generator.

Not a day passes with my LLM of choice making completely baseless claims about "many people", who supposedly share all my problems and solve them like the LLM proposes

"Here is the X part", a commonly generated attention catcher these days, combined with an expert level fact, compacted into casual tone. Note it does not state opinion or reports subjective experience, which alltogether makes it a somewhat unfailable "Did you know?" addition. It is easy to mass generate such commentary and you can frequently find it on Twitter, too.

I find it hard to believe that a human would after reading this article make the stated observation, and then write this exact comment.

did you generate this comment?

Clojure is about its rigorous and pragmatic "immutability first" paradigm that you simply don't get from other PLs.

LISP is much more than just a runtime syntax, such as its distinct evaluation model and metalinguistic core.

The JVM was chosen for Clojure because of its reach and vast ecosystem. People have ported Clojure to other runtimes, even Beam (Clojerl), where it enjoys decent success, too.

Why does this read like written by AI?

What you are describing is exactly a security implication.

Of course calling out baseless FUD is helpful. Otherwise it just discourages people from engaging with Clojure, which is not helpful.

Indeed. Generated code is also harder to read because it violates all semantic expectations that rely on the mental model of a human author. A generated piece of code is linguistically plausible but often unknowingly imitates common idioms so incoherently that the actual bug may be accidentally disguised in a way no sane human (even a bad programmer) could have come up with.

Since LLMs have no internal evaluation, as a reviewer one has to account for it and evaluate line by line, rebuild from scratch any hidden rationale and tacit knowledge the LLM didn't have in the first place - only to be mislead into non concerns draining costly hours.

At this point, the investment is often deeper than writing from scratch.