So, then if I want to use a certain terminal text editor to create a clone of it in nanolang, I'd end up typing nano nano.nano on the command line.

I might accidentally summon a certain person from Ork.

One novel part here is every function is required to have tests that run at compile time.

I'm still skeptical of the value add having to teaching a custom language to an LLM instead of using something like lua or python and applying constraints like test requirements onto that.

Looks nice!

It seems that something that does away with human friendly syntax and leans more towards a pure AST representation would be even better? Basically a Lisp but with very strict typing might do the trick. And most LLMs are probably trained on lots of Lisps already.

Developed by Jordan Hubbard of NVIDIA (and FreeBSD).

My understanding/experience is that LLM performance in a language scales with how well the language is represented in the training data.

From that assumption, we might expect LLMs to actually do better with an existing language for which more training code is available, even if that language is more complex and seems like it should be “harder” to understand.