<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>From Code to Correctness: Closing the Last Mile of Code Generation with Hierarchical Debugging · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.01215/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:27:26 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.01215/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>From Code to Correctness: Closing the Last Mile of Code Generation with Hierarchical Debugging — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42194461</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:2410.01215:42194461</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:59:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Ask HN: LLM Performance on ADA and Haskell&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been wondering for a while if LLMs perform better on languages that are more restrictive than Python out-of-the-box. Is anyone using Claude, GPT, Cursor, Aider etc for ADA or functional languages and do they create less errors than code generated in Python, even if it&amp;#x27;s subjective? The question is a little inspired by this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.01215 FROM CODE TO CORRECTNESS: CLOSING THE LAST MILE OF CODE GENERATION WITH HIERARCHICAL DEBUGGING. Sometimes LLMs are fantastic and sometimes it feels like a battle to get simple things done or pick up where I left off. I think I&amp;#x27;m…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 point; 1 discussion reply on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.01215/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
