Programming languages are most interesting area in CS for the next 10 years. AI need criteria for correctness that can't be faked so the boundary between proof verification and programs will become fuzzier and fuzzier. The runtimes also need support for massively parallel development in a way that is totally unnecessary for humans.

> Post had nothing to do with Haskell so the title is a bit misleading.

To be fair, that's not part of the article's title, but rather the title of the website that the article was posted to.

I was excited to see a non-AI article on this site for once. Oh well.

It was a good article though

>which can't reliably be written in an interview

Why not? It sounds like a skill issue to me.

>It ideally also requires iterating upon the prompt to refine it before execution.

I don't understand. It's not like you would need to one shot it.

How about bug fixing? Give someone a repo with a tricky bug, ask them to figure it out with the help of their coding agent of choice.

In the UK the driving test requires a portion of driving using a satnav, the idea being that drivers are going to use satnavs so it's important to test that they know how how to use them safely.

The same goes for using Claude in a programming interview. If the environment of interview is not representative of how people actually work then the interview needs to be changed.