<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>ChopChop: a Programmable Framework for Semantically Constraining the Output of Language Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2509.00360/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2509.00360/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>ChopChop: a Programmable Framework for Semantically Constraining the Output of Language Models — mentioned by tikhonj</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46585557</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2509.00360:46585557</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 08:19:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;From what I&amp;#x27;ve heard—and in my own very limited experiments—LLMs are much better at less popular languages than I would have expected. I&amp;#x27;ve had good results with OCaml, and I&amp;#x27;ve talked to people who&amp;#x27;ve had good results with Haskell and even Unison. I&amp;#x27;ve also seen multiple startups that have had some pretty impressive performance with Lean and Rocq. My current theory is that as long as the LLM has sufficiently good baseline performance in a language, the kind of scaffolding and tooling you can build around the pure code generation will have an outsize effect, and languages with expressive type…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2509.00360/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
