I have been playing with the idea of an LLM native programming language focusing on token efficiency, comprehension, and attention. It is interesting to see what the various large models come up with. A common theme actually reminds me quite of bit of assembly. The verb prefixing, limited statements per line, small concept surface area all appeared in multiple conversations across several larger models. The big difference being assembly lacks semantic meaning leaving some benefit on the table. I still cannot believe what some did with the tech, RCT is such a retro favorite.

"Assembly is Brutal"

Counterpoint: I picked it up in high school and I was Not That Bright(tm).

Certainly, some complex instruction-set extensions or sprawling SIMD mnemonics are more challenging that what I was reading in the 90s, but the boogie-man status of assembly is greatly overstated.

The final thesis, that we can-and-should let LLMs micro-optimize assembly into non-statically-verifiable gibberish to save an instruction stacks misunderstandings on top of misunderstandings. Just vapid gold-rush cheer-leading from Wired.

I am coding my own wayland compositor, in rv64 assembly... running on x86_64 with a small interpreter.

I am currently only using the core ISA (no compressed instructions, not even the pseudo instructions), and I use a C preprocessor to avoid to get my code locked on the preprocessor of one assembler.

I started to code assembly when I was a teenager as it is not hard: only uncomfortable. Nowdays, with what seems a real global, no IP locks, ISA, RISC-V, it is very reasonable to write directly assembly, as (real and sane) standard assembly is extremely efficient at fighting planned obsolecence.