홈으로 돌아가기
Hacker News

AI가 코드를 작성해 준다면, 굳이 파이썬을 왜 써야 할까요?

If AI writes your code, why use Python?

826 points 877 comments indigodaddy 2026-05-12 05:45

댓글

20
niek_pas 2026-05-12 06:07
ENGLISH (원문)
Bit off topic but why in the world are people still posting on medium? The reading experience is abhorrent; I couldn’t even finish reading this article before a full screen popup literally blocked the sentence I was reading. Is there some incentive I’m not seeing?
schmookeeg 2026-05-12 06:08
ENGLISH (원문)
I assume this is why things like PyO3 are popping up? If so, sort of a fascinating way to compartmentalize new rust code into legacy .py code in lieu of a refactor, or at least, a way to do a staggered refactor and eat the elephant in bites :)
kylec 2026-05-12 06:10
ENGLISH (원문)
This post resonates. I recently built a little web service to scratch an itch I've been having and after discussing the options with Claude we settled on Go, and honestly it's been fantastic. Highly performant, native threading, dead simple to deploy with containers. And I don't even know how to read or write Go.
nickff 2026-05-12 06:12
ENGLISH (원문)
It seems like it's just the latest evolution of the writer-friendly blogging platform; easier than Wordpress to package into a newsletter, and also easier to monetize with a paid tier.
dsmurrell 2026-05-12 06:13
ENGLISH (원문)
Yep, Medium was free and everyone donated content... then it put up reading paywalls and conned everyone, I'm also surprised when I see people writing on there.
chneu 2026-05-12 06:14
ENGLISH (원문)
My best guess is momentum. Some people are very, very brand loyal and have to do things in relation to what/how others do things. In reality it doesn't matter where something is posted, just give us a url, but some people don't operate that way.
rchowe 2026-05-12 06:16
ENGLISH (원문)
Python has a much more mature ecosystem than Rust, especially for AI/ML stuff. I ran into a rust crate that purported to do a certain ML algorithm but did not do it correctly. I managed to write a replacement with Claude though. I do think enforcing correctness at the type system level is a good idea for AI, which is why I often choose languages like C# and Rust over Python. However, for some things Python is definitely the correct tool for the job.
an0malous 2026-05-12 06:19
ENGLISH (원문)
The ideal language for AI coding: 1. Type safety as basic guard rails that LLM output is syntactically and schematically correct 2. Concise since you have to review a lot more code 3. Easy to debug / good observability since you can't rely on your understanding of the code. Something functional where you can observe the state at any moment would be ideal. 4. A very large set of public code examples across various domains so there's enough training data for the LLM to be proficient in that language 5. A large open source ecosystem of libraries to write less code and avoid the tendency for generated code to bloat It's basically all the same things you look for in general. I think TypeScript scores high here but I'm curious if anyone knows of a language that fits these criteria better.
ane 2026-05-12 06:20
ENGLISH (원문)
Java?
tptacek 2026-05-12 06:21
ENGLISH (원문)
Type safety feels like the big one; anything you can shift to static/compile-time regimes benefits agents immensely.
__mharrison__ 2026-05-12 06:21
ENGLISH (원문)
AI's are really good with Python. Quick turnaround. Easy to read. Tons of training data/examples. Many of the same reasons we wrote Python before. Another benefit to using Python, is if you subscribe to writing/vibing a throwaway version first, a Python version is 100x better than a spec. (Disclaimer: I teach Python and AI for a living and am doing a tutorial at pycon this week, Beyond vibe coding. Am also using other languages as there are times when Python isn't appropriate)
fxj 2026-05-12 06:21
ENGLISH (원문)
You can of course use any language but here is my advice: you should use the language that you know best to make your life as uncomplicated as possible when you want to understand what the LLM was creating. Remember, you are the judge whether the code is OK and if you use assembler you might get really performant code, but can you trust it? Of course it might be a good incentive to learn rust or go. Or challenge yourself to learn something really cool like LISP, COBOL, FORTRAN, APL or J. (just kidding...) just my 2 ct...
pdimitar 2026-05-12 06:21
ENGLISH (원문)
Golang. People trash it for being verbose on errors but it's an extremely readable language and it's almost like bash, only much stronger typed and with a very rich stdlib (so it's not likely you'll need a library for a quick script). It's more or less a perfect replacement for Python for "one-off programs" and "quick scripts". Many bonus points for not having to fight shell quotation rules and trying to remember differences between sh, bash and zsh.
OliverGilan 2026-05-12 06:25
ENGLISH (원문)
I’d also argue it needs to compile fast/ have fast static analysis. Feedback loops like this are super helpful for agents
0xbadcafebee 2026-05-12 06:25
ENGLISH (원문)
[delayed]
dukeyukey 2026-05-12 06:25
ENGLISH (원문)
This is just Kotlin. Strongly typed, more concise than Java or Go (and probably Typescript), less likely to blow up at runtime than Typescript, epic tooling, plenty of public code, and a library for basically anything because JVM.
queenkjuul 2026-05-12 06:26
ENGLISH (원문)
Go is fun, you should actually learn it
MaxBarraclough 2026-05-12 06:26
ENGLISH (원문)
> Concise since you have to review a lot more code Isn't readability what matters here? Conciseness isn't the same thing.
dakiol 2026-05-12 06:27
ENGLISH (원문)
Problem with Python and other non-strict typed languages is that if you let an LLM to write some stuff, you cannot truly be confident that nothing has broken. Even if your tests all pass. The LLM could have broken some path that only gets run in production in a very specific case. At least with strongly-typed languages you get a compiler error. In big codebases is non-negotiable
serf 2026-05-12 06:28
ENGLISH (원문)
1) python is one of the foremost trained upon languages 2) it's practically verbose, not technically 3) it resembles pseudocode 4) batteries included shortcuts a lot of work all of these reasons are a boon for LLM work.

좋아요가 저장됐어요!

로그인하면 어디서나 확인하고
영구적으로 저장할 수 있어요.